Thinking Allowed

When Mentalism Isn't Magic
by Jon Thompson

There's a tendency amongst its practitioners to regard mentalism as superior to magic rather than being its sibling. Some mentalists claim they smear the boundary between entertainment and psychic ability, while pointing out that the magician is simply a trickster, and will always remain so. I've even seen one mentalist use "magician" almost as a term of abuse. However, claiming to smear boundaries while using the traditional tools and techniques of mentalism is, I believe, holding mentalism back and keeping it shackled to magic. This essay both explores why, and offers a possible alternative.

Richard Osterlind says during 'Easy to Master Mental Miracles' (volume 3): "A whole lot of mentalism is not very sophisticated." Coming into mentalism from a lifelong love of psychology rather than magic, I tend to agree. I remember feeling distinctly unimpressed at the gulf between what the mentalist says is happening and the actual methods used. In many ways, the technical side of mentalism is a lot easier than magic, but does this make it better or just easier? Because of this, I can't help seeing magic and mentalism as being opposite sides of the same coin.

Before you turn away in disgust, let's quickly agree that the common aim of both magic and mentalism is to produce miraculous feats from demonstrably sterile starting conditions. The performer proceeds towards a conclusion. To do so, the magician uses secret preparation, sleights and gaffs. The mentalist also uses secret preparation, sleights and gaffs.

Even if we don't call our "little helpers" by those names (and if you think about it, you'll realise that very few do), they still bear a striking similarity to their magical counterparts. For instance, a magician might peek a card to get its identity, whereas a mentalist might use a centre tear to peek a word. The magician might use a pass to deliver a card to the right part of the deck, whereas a mentalist might use a swami to deliver a prediction to the right piece of paper. At the point of revelation, magicians symbolically ask: "Is this your card?" Mentalists ask, "Is this your thought?" The list of comparisons is endless. This is what I mean about magic and mentalism being two sides of the same coin. For me, this leads to an uncomfortable situation.

If we deliberately use tears, peeks, swamis, indices, swaps, and all the other sleights, tools and techniques of the trade, how can we ever legitimately claim to be smearing any boundary when we know we're simply engaging in deliberate subterfuge - just like a magician? At best, I think those that maintain this stance are subject to self-delusion. At worst, it's a struggle to see them in any better light than the medium who insists against all evidence to the contrary (even being caught out) that she talks to the dead and yet knows she does anything but.

While this is the case, there will always be debunkers and naysayers on our backs, looking for the mistake that belies the method, and quite rightly pouring scorn on any claims of a supernatural nature. As mentalists, however, we have an alternative to this miserable state of affairs that simply isn't open to our brother magicians. We can make the break from magical techniques and genuinely enter the realm of the paranormal by using methods that mimic the "real thing" as nearly as possible. So, why don't we?

I suspect that it's because, for the vast majority of mentalists brought up on a rich diet of Corinda and Annemann, this idea produces real anxiety. They'd have to leave the familiar comfort zone of methods that generate 100% success, and accept hit rates that, while lower than anyone's used to, are still massively higher than any psychic can ever hope to achieve.

At first sight, this seems to be a retrograde step, something inferior, but it doesn't have to be. Many mentalists play the "what would the real thing do?" game, looking for that certain "resonance" to their work that leaves sceptics believing that something real has taken place. For me, it's only by abandoning its usual methods that mentalism stops being the other side of the coin to magic and starts to generate a resonance that first smears then crosses boundaries. I'm not simply talking about psychological forces here, but a whole direction, a philosophy, if you like, of mentalism.

In fact, it was a growing frustration with the gulf between methods and effects that formed the starting point for my own "Naked" approach to mentalism. In it, techniques and methods have no physical component. You could, if required, perform naked to prove you're doing nothing other than what you say you are. Here's how it works.

Psychology says that when people genuinely believe that they gain insights by psychic means, they're actually experiencing their subconscious deriving then deriving meaning from its own general model of the world. Naked techniques simply replace this imperfect model and its associated reasoning with accurate, purpose-built alternatives. Surely, if we want people to believe in us, then that should the only difference between a mentalist and a real psychic. There's nothing to peek, crib, write, burn, tear, or erase. You use nothing more than your mind to obtain your results.

But rather than encouraging you to see the genuine psychic as nothing of the sort, it's far more interesting to see things in terms of using Naked techniques to do consciously and far more effectively what the real thing tries to do subconsciously.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this is how you feel when you perform "Nakedly". Though you can still manipulate the situation to minimise your misses and even turn them into stunning hits, what you feel is far closer to the feeling a real psychic gets, and that's when boundaries really do begin to blur.

Jon Thompson