(Wow... Two topics in a single day... Man I'm on a roll... *cough*)

I realise my topics all seem to have titles in the form of a question. But whatever...

I think everyone knows that one big difference between a mentalism act and a magic act (whether it's cards, doves, or twins) is that in mentalism you get to make mistakes. In fact, you want to deliberately make a mistake now and then, since this actually makes the case that you have powers more convincing (sure it's ironic, but heck...)

While searching for a booktest, I came across Bob Farmer's "Deja Voodoo". I won't describe it here, but you can find it on Hanklee.

Anyway, "Deja Voodoo" sounds like a dream. You make a kind of double prediction with a freely chosen card and a dictionary, but people who have used it, including Ian Rowland, said that it doesn't get as big a reaction as you might expect. The problem? It's too damn good.

Yep... Ironic but it does happen: A mental effect so good that the audience's mind immediately discredits it. Years ago there was a debate whether Copperfield disappearing the Statue of Liberty was "too good" as to be waaaay out of the "field of possibility". I think that point is even more pertinent in mentalism. You want to convey the sense that you have some unusual powers, but you don't want to appear too perfect.

I won't pretend to know why this is so (I suspect it may have something to do with the idea that if you're that good, then nothing is safe, and an appreciative audience would want to be assured that they can still keep some thoughts secret from a mind-reader), but I think this is a major, major, major point. Many mental effects I see fall into this realm of being too good, and so I avoid them, but I wonder if I'm not just being brain-washed to think this way by people who may just be lazy or have poor presentations.

I don't know what's the point in this thread. But if anyone has any thoughts, please feel free to express them. I'm not very experienced, so there are a lot of things I say which are just based on first impressions, thus liable to be utterly false. Cheers!

Yay, finally someone talks about the Too Perfect Theory. Maddened sir, if you happen to have discovered this theory yourself, then congratulations. :lol:

When a trick seems TOO PERFECT, it often isn't perfect enough.

By the way, I don't understand how laymen can actyally feel threatened that this guy here can read my mind.

Too Perfect Mentalism? I don't think so.

Here's a link to one of my favourite sites that happens to have an article on the Too Perfect Theory...

http://www.online-visions.com/realmagic/0404dan.html

As far as I know, the Too Perfect theory deals with effects which are so perfect, that the only possible way in which they can be done is the very secret itself.

In magic, you would want to create the most amazing effects possible, short of nothing (unless of course, it leads to the audience being able to logically - through the process of elimination - arrive at the secret).

In mentalism, although some people do think that you should make mistakes once in a while, I think that it should rather be a case of trying to hit every single time (and even if there are mistakes, its more pardonable in mentalism). But definitely, you do not want to miss (think of all the time and effort spent to build the impact needed for a successful mentalism effect).

However, the only balance for this hitting of every time is a certain degree of vagueness in the effect (a little like cold reading). This is because you do not want the audience to suspect any trickery (which would soon become the only possible way of achieving some mind-blowing mind-readiong effects - ala the Too Perfect theory). For example, if you are doing a headline prediction, you might predict "Terrorist killed in the Middle East" for the headline "Abul Hireed killed by American forces in Iraq". Else if you had struck word for word, something tricky is definitely up...

And sticking with the previous idea, for a multiple headlines prediction, I would rather get every single headline correct (with that degree of vagueness) instead of getting 1 or 2 wrong.

So the message you will send out is, "I can predict/read minds consistently to a rather large extent of accuracy."

Thanks for the link panpanpan; very interesting read (albeit short).

Thanks gordie for the very insightful comments too!

Though I have to say that what gordie is talking about is closer to what I was trying to say.

With that in mind, it's not so much a "Too Perfect" but rather a "Too Good" thing. Say you claim at the start of the act (and here I'll almost exclusively talk about a mentalism act, though this I'm sure applies to other fields as well) somewhere that you have the ability to read minds if the conditions are right (i.e. with a willing participant; when it's simple words or images being projected to the mentalist; with the right amount of focus and concentration etc.) but then comes an effect where you not only mind-read a word chosen from a dictionary, but also read the value of the card which was used to obtain the page number, AND you show that the card (which was freely selected) is the only blue-back in a red deck... Doesn't it become almost too good?

And while I understand the point that the only option left to the spectator may sometimes be the secret itself, I disagree with Paulus because at this point, the audience would probably only be thinking, "Oh it's just a very elaborate trick!" And your whole claim from the start crumples... because it's too good. When Copperfield files, I know it's a trick immediately, but at the same time, the main point of the flying was more of the grace and elegance and emotional/aesthetic pleasure than the illusion that a man can fly. But when he makes the Statue of Liberty disappears, then ack... "It's just a elaborate trick".

The "Too Perfect" problem probably becomes a problem because some magician is trying to eliminate as much possibility in the mind of the spectator as how a trick is done, and so he shows that his hand is empty (which means he is not p*l***g a card), he lets the spectator shuffle the deck, he uses a borrowed deck, he ties himself in a strait-jacket... until it becomes a "too perfect" trick (I don't know, just speculating).

The "Too Good" problem makes the spectator reach one conclusion and one alone: That it's not accomplished by the way you claim it is. A good mentalism effect would leave open the possibility that the mentalist really might just be psychic, while a "too good" mentalism effect (e.g. being able to "mind-read" the names, ages, and addresses of every single audience member) will eliminate that possibility altogether because it's just too good.

I don't know if I'm making sense or I'm basically saying the same things that panpanpan and gordie have said, but thanks for the input! This is quite a fascinating discussion and I hope to see more replies! ^_^

Again, I believe that this trick is simply not perfect enough. IMHO, it is too complex.

I believe that this effect you clain to be too good has multiple climaxes - divine a dictionary word, THEN the card, THEN show that the card is the odd one out. If I could change the effect, I would scrap the last odd card climax. It just doesn't link.

This lack on linkage simply leads to the COMPLEXITY of effects, which then reduces the impact of the effect, because to me, it is not because the effect sucks, but the audience finds it hard to understand why the card has to be an odd backed card! The saying Simple Magic hits hard applies here.

I know its strange to lead from "Too Good" to Too Complex, but that is what happens when you try to create a Too Good Trick. You stuff so many unrelated climaxes into one trick, it becomes hard to understand and diffcult to digest.

I had this effect last time (self invented) where 3 cards are chosen, lost in the pack, do a Triumph-style shuffle, and the climaxes are that the 3 cards are face up, followed by they are odd backed, PLUS the fact that the rest of the cards are shown blank.

I was trying to create the ultimate Too Good effect, and it turned out crap. No one reacted to it, with the best reaction being a muttered "That's crazy". Why? It is too complex. :)

When you go for simpler effects, it obviously gets better reactions than a long effect that makes no sense.

At a meeting, a famous magician, Prakas Puru gave a lecture to all of us. He did a trick which was ' too damn good '.

He pulled a participant out, and asked him to think of a book. Prakash then wrote down a prediction flashed it to everyone ( except the participant who's mind he was reading ), and he then asked the participant what he was thinking of. He got the prediction right. He then repeated the effect with 2 more predictions, ( page number and word on that page ). He did the same thing and he did it bloody well.

I was completely fooled. A layman next to me, started to choke.

I think the too perfect theory doesn't exist. Maybe, just maybe, we may not be handling the audience well enough.