Though the art of misdirection is as old as conjuring and fortune-telling once again, it seems to have been the very shrewd and intelligent magician Robert-Houdin who first gave examples of its actual workings. In his great book Secrets of Conjuring and Magic, he has written in archaic language words whose meaning requires no translation:
''Some actions and movements of the performer are designed solely to facilitate what in conjuring is called a temps.
A temps is the opportune moment for effecting a given disappearance, or the like unknown to the spectators. In this case, the act or movement which constitutes the temps is specially designed to divert the overt attention of the spectators to some point more or less remote from that at which the ''Some actions and movements of the performer are designed solely to facilitate what in conjuring is called a temps.
A temps is the opportune moment for effecting a given disappearance, or the like, unknown to the spectators. In this case, the act or movement which constitutes the temps is specially designed to divert the overt attention of the spectators to some point more or less remote from that at which the trick is actually worked.
For example a conjurer will ostentatiously place some article on one corner of the table at which he is performing, while the left hand finding its way behind the table, gets possession of some hidden object to be subsequently produced.
Or, again, he will throw a ball in the air and catch it in the right hand in order to gain an opportunity, during the same instant of taking with the left hand another ball out of the pocket.
Yet again, a mere tap with the magic wand on any spot, at the same time, looking at it attentively, will infallibly draw the eyes of the whole company in the same direction.
'These modes of influencing the direction of the eyes of an audience seem very simple and as though they could cause no deception and yet they are never found to fail. Each trick has its own appropriate gestures, and its own special temps, combined with the monument, or spattered which supplies the pretext for them.”
In the course of this tutorial, I’ll describe various temps of extreme ingenuity, and the effect of which is such that even the most determined will cannot resist them. It is a great loss Robert-Houdin out of his practical experience did not write more fully of misdirection—or as he called it a temps—so contrived that ''even the most determined will cannot resist it.''
For this man whose every conscientiously-penned line shows he knew thoroughly the subject which he discussed could have saved later generations of conjurers much perplexity and bafflement. Robert-Houdin knew misdirection exists in the mind of the spectator, that in order to misdirect him, you must interest him that you must turn his mind to new channels of thought and belief through the use of the laws of interest.
Because he knew this, because he was a thoughtful and intelligent man, he became the greatest magician of his day. He had an inquiring mind, and he was something of a perfectionist, believing what was done was worth doing well. He left nothing to chance, each trick had its appropriate gestures, its own special temps or misdirection, its own patter.
Wrote both with the authority of conscious experience and the earnestness of an expert expounding the theory and practice of his craft, in which he took pride. He knew what the reader already knows, or must someday learn, each trick must have its special misdirection, in the use of which the element of chance plays no part. It is a fuller exposition of this art of misdirection with which this tutorial on the web concerns itself.
There is another point, a corollary of the first, which should be made clear before a number of examples the art of misdirection can be given', this concerns the quality of the misdirection: The distraction which is offered to the spectator in order to misdirect him must be of such a nature he will concentrate his attention and thought upon it.
It must pique his interest or arouse his curiosity. It must preoccupy his thoughts; it must be interesting and seem to him to be important. In other words, the use of a gesture to divert covert attention, or the turning of the gaze in the hope it will carry with it the gaze of all the spectators, is not enough. It may serve its purpose, and it may not; it is not certain.
Similarly, making use of the ''opportune moment'' when this is left to chance may or may not afford the protection needed to cover the sleight. Your purpose here is to analyze misdirection so strong it will divert the overt attention of all the spectators at the crucial moment causing inattentional blindness, so the reader, with knowledge about misdirection and understanding its nature, may apply it to his own sleight of hand.
Because attentional misdirection techniques are used in all types of magic to potentially influence cognitive functions, let us examine several notably successful examples of misdirection, keeping in mind both its definition and the necessity for making the diversion offered of such a nature it will capture the interest of those present.
Note how, in the following examples, the absorbed interest of the spectator is turned away from the conjurer at the vital moment, how a new stimulus has claimed his attention which he can no more resist than the impulse to turn and see who has entered the room behind him.
a. The magician, wearing a hooded cloak, stands on the stage near the wings.
A grotesque bear clambers on the stage and dances weirdly about. The spectator gazes at this strange apparition, and for a few seconds, his thoughts are concentrated upon it: He wants to know why it dances so queerly and what part it takes in the illusion in hand. He gives his undivided attention to the dancing bear, and during these moments, the magician steps back into the wings, and an assistant, similarly garbed, takes his place.
No more perfect example of misdirection principles could be asked. A diversion is created away from the magician, which catches and holds interest. Since it is impossible to concentrate on two ideas at once, the magician has thrown a wrench into the gears of the perceptual and cognitive mechanisms of the spectators. The spectator dismisses the magician from his mind. The substitution of persons is made during these moments.
This active misdirection relies on only attentional processes and has been used by Blackstone in a stage illusion over a period of twenty years. It works as efficiently today as it did a century ago because it is basically sound. In card conjuring, the sense of misdirection which is used is in keeping with the type of misdirection magic being performed. The principle, however, is the same. It compels the conclusion of magic and precludes any alternative explanations.
Because of the wider range of vision on a full stage, illusion misdirection must be much stronger, the diversion of a more spectacular nature. In card conjuring, where it is necessary to shift the gaze of a spectator a few feet only, the diversion is of a more intimate and logical nature.
b. The Vanishing Pack of Cards: The conjurer arouses the interest of his onlookers by drawing an object from his rear right hip pocket. (What will he take from his pocket?) It proves to be a handkerchief. (Oh, it 's a handkerchief, what will he do with it?) During the few seconds in which the spectator concentrates upon the handkerchief, the conjurer quietly drops the pack in his left coat pocket.
c. The magician has enticed a small boy upon the stage, and the boy, under expert coaching, is providing that most amusing of human-interest spectacles: small boy vs. the magician. The conjurer turns away, and the small boy lifts his coattails and peers up under them, presumably in search of hidden rabbits.
The audience rocks with laughter, and for a few moments, it is preoccupied with a never-failing source of audience interest, the revelation of human character. The audience knows this is an exciting moment in the boy's life, and it watches to see how he will react.
In lifting the magician's tails, he has acted with amusing audacity, and the audience watches to see exactly what the boy will do next, he has captured their absorbed interest, to the exclusion of all else. During these moments, the magician pops the rabbit into the hat for later production.
d. The magician has placed one sponge ball in his own hand, one in the hand of a spectator. He asks the spectator if he, the magician, can remove the sponge ball in the former's tightly clenched hand. The spectator emphatically states he cannot.
By making this query, the conjurer has injected an element of doubt as to the issue of conflict into his presentation, and an interest in the outcome of the trick. Can the magician remove the sponge ball from the spectator's hand? It doesn't seem possible; still, he seems very self-confident. The conjurer opens his hand and shows his ball has vanished. The spectator opens his hand, and therein finds not one, but two sponge balls.
As he opens his hand, the interest of the spectators in the contents of his hand is at its peak. What will be in hand? Has the sponge ball actually vanished? The magician, forgotten, steals another sponge ball, or a glass of liquid, or a small block of ice, from under his vest. His misdirection in terms has been good.
e. A card has been chosen and returned to the pack. The conjurer promises this card will be found at a named number. He deals that number and places the card face downwards on the table. He reaches out to turn the card face upwards, and the spectator watches the card intently. Is it the chosen card, or isn't it? As the card is being faced, the expert: makes the glimpse, the one-hand shift, gets rid of a palmed card, or performs any other sleight which must be made.
f. The sleight of hand artist wraps a glass in a piece of newsprint, places a coin on the table, and promises to make it pass through the solid tabletop. He hits the table several times with the wrapped glass to emphasize its solidity and covers the coin with it.
He announces the coin has duly vanished and lifts the wrapped glass back to the edge of the table as the spectators watch intently. Is the coin under the glass, as it should be, or has it really disappeared? The conjurer drops the glass in his lap as the spectators, their thoughts on the coin and not the covering glass, note the coin has not vanished.
The wizard re-covers the coin with the empty newsprint shell, which retains the form of the glass. He smashes the shell and makes the glass vanish, and makes the coin vanish', and both the coin and the glass are brought forth from under the table. The vanishment of the glass is a complete mystery because it was made at a time when the neural mechanisms of the spectator were upon the coin.
g. The card expert shows a card and requests a spectator to extend his hand. When a spectator offers his right hand, he is asked to use his left hand instead. He brings this up, but he does not hold it in the correct position, the performer grasps it with his left hand, which holds the pack, and places it just so with meticulous care.
He moves the left hand, with the pack, inwards towards his body and as he does this he says, ''No, that's not quite eighth's.”
Those present wonder why the hand must be placed with such care in exactly the proper position, and they also speculate on when this proper position will be secured. They watch the spectator's hand. The conjurer top-changes the card being held in the right hand under cover of this misdirection and places the changed card on the outstretched hand. Later it is shown the card has miraculously changed.
h. The magician places a blank square of paper in an envelope, has a card chosen (it is not looked at), and places the card on the envelope. He makes a mystic pass, cuts open the sealed envelope with a penknife, and removes the little square of paper resting on the flat knife blade. He places it on the table and requests the spectator to show his card. It is the ace of diamonds. The conjurer has folded the envelope (it is a faked double envelope) in half. He requests a spectator to turn the square of paper.
The audience concentrates its attention upon the paper. What's under the surface of that square of paper? It is turned over and on it is a miniature of the chosen ace of diamonds. During the moments when the thought of those present was concentrated on the paper, the conjurer has thrust the folded double envelope into his right coat pocket and withdrawn an unprepared duplicate envelope which has been folded and cut as was the first envelope. He drops this on the table.
When it is examined, it affords no explanation of the mystery. It is hoped these few and varied examples of excellent misdirection will serve to show in controlling the gaze of an audience, you must interest it in that at which it is asked to look.
This does not mean the magical techniques of misdirection must be elaborate or lengthy. According to Lamont and Wiseman’s book, it may be a trick with a very simple action. You have, for instance, palmed cards from a packet of fifteen while performing the Three Cards Across, and at the moment the palm is made, you request spectator A to hand the pack to spectator B on your left. The palm is completely covered since the spectators watch the pack of cards as it passes from assistant to assistant.
You hand the packet of cards first dealt, minus the palmed cards, to spectator A, and later onlookers claim they kept their eyes on this packet every moment and it contained the entire fifteen cards first dealt. You request spectator B to deal fifteen cards onto your extended left hand, and every eye in the audience watches the deal as the spectators count the cards one by one to make certain no more than fifteen are dealt. Their conscious experience is occupied as they have been interested in the accuracy of the deal, and you have misdirected their attention from the right hand, which holds the palmed cards. The theory of misdirection can be built into the presentation of a blue card trick almost at will once a real understanding of its attentional principles is had.