The Trickster and the Paranormal

Home > Other > The Trickster and the Paranormal > Page 15
The Trickster and the Paranormal Page 15

by George P. Hansen


  CHAPTER 11

  Conjurors and the Paranormal

  Everything that deceives may be said to enchant.

  Plato1

  The terms magic and conjuring are defined as the influencing of the physical world via supernatural means, but they are also synonymous with legerdemain, trickery, and sleight-of-hand.2 The two definitions seem to have little in common, but there are actually deep connections between them. The links are obscure, but that obscurity is a clue to their nature. Primitive peoples often did not make a distinction between the two kinds of magic, and it behooves us to understand why. To clarify this it is helpful to examine magicians who perform tricks, especially those who have been involved with the paranormal.

  Magicians’ embroilment in paranormal controversies didn’t start with the modern-day skeptical movement or even with Houdini’s attack on spiritualism. Over 400 years ago the first English-language book describing practical conjurors’ methods, Reginald Scot’s The Discoverie of Witchcraft, also attacked beliefs in divination, alchemy, astrology, the Catholic Church, exorcism and precognitive dreams. But by no means were all magicians debunkers. John Wilkins’ Mercury: Or the Secret and Swift Messenger, one of the first books discussing mentalist methods, spoke favorably of communications from spirits and angels. Hocus Pocus Junior and the first magic magazine ever published also gave favorable comment to the paranormal. This dichotomy of opinion is not limited to hundreds of years ago; many conjurors have since endorsed the reality of paranormal phenomena while others have been some of the most vocal critics. This peculiar association of conjuring and the supernatural spans centuries, even millennia. The fact that the controversy over the existence of psi continues even within the magic community indicates an especially problematic situation.

  At present, many people believe that magicians are almost all skeptical about paranormal phenomena. This impression has been fostered by an effective propaganda campaign by debunkers. The impression is untrue, the campaign intentionally misleading. Many of the greatest names in the history of conjuring endorsed the reality of psychic phenomena, and a list of them is provided in Table 5. In addition I identified many more in a two-part article in The Linking Ring, the monthly magazine of the International Brotherhood of Magicians.

  Author or Editor

  Scot, Reginald

  Year

  1584

  Title

  The Discoverie of Witchcraft

  Description

  First practical English-language work on conjuring.

  Anonymous

  1634

  Hocus Pocus Junior

  First original work devoted solely to conjuring.

  Wilkins, John

  1641

  Mercury: Or The Secret and Swift Messenger

  One of the first works describing mentalist methods.

  Ady, Thomas

  1655

  A Candle in the Dark

  Written against the witchcraft persecutions

  Decremps, Henri

  1784

  La Magie Blanche Dévoilée

  Regarded as the most important work on magic since Scot’s of

  1584.

  Locke, W.

  1791

  The Conjuror’s Magazine

  The first magic magazine.

  Pinchbeck, W. F.

  1805

  The Expositor; or Many Mysteries Unravelled

  First original work on magic published in the U.S.

  Table 4 Major Historical Works on Conjuring That Also Addressed the Paranormal

  Magician

  Reference

  Abbott, David P.

  Abbott (1908)

  Hyslop et al (1913)

  Baldwin, Samri S.

  Baldwin (1895, p. 104)

  Bellachini, Samuel

  Zöllner (1881, pp. 213-214)

  Dickson, Abb

  Zorka (1976)

  Evans, Henry Ridgely

  Evans (1897, pp. 12, 32)

  Gibson, Walter B.

  Gibson & Gibson (1969)

  Goldston, Will

  Goldston (1933)

  Jansen, Harry (Dante)

  Rauscher (2000, pp. 61-62)

  Kellar, Harry

  Rinn (1950, p. 387)

  Lewis, Angelo

  Lewis (1886)

  (Professor Hoffmann)

  Maskelyne, John Nevil

  A Spiritualistic Expose-II (1885)

  Maskelyne (1885, 1910)

  McGill, Ormond

  McGill (1977)

  Miller, Katlyn (Katlyn)

  Katlyn (1982, 1989)

  Oursler, Fulton

  Oursler (1964, pp. 184, 482-484)

  Parsons, E. A. (Henry Hardin)

  Hyslop et al (1913)

  Price, Harry

  Price (1925)

  Robert-Houdin, Jean Eugene

  Lee (1866, pp. 162-163)

  Goldston (1906, p. 22)

  Thurston, Howard

  Thurston (1910)

  Table 5 Magicians Who Endorsed the Reality of Psychic Phenomena

  All of the above persons were of sufficient prominence to be included in The Encyclopedia of Magic and Magicians by T. A. Waters (1988). Names in parentheses are stage or pen names. All references give first-person accounts.

  Anti-structural Aspects of Conjuring

  Conjuring, by its nature is liminal and anti-structural. The magician’s role is one of the margin and outsiderhood, yet I do not recall ever seeing any academic theorist of liminality discuss magicians. This seems to have been completely overlooked. Historically, conjurors have been associated with mountebanks, itinerant entertainers and other unsavory figures—persons not part of the establishment. The

  art is seen more in the interstices than as part of the structure, and today conjuring remains apart from most institutional affiliations. Whereas music, painting, and drama are taught in virtually all colleges and universities, magic never became an element of the established curriculum. Magic courses are rarely found even in adult education programs and are virtually never offered for college credit. Few libraries have substantial holdings on the topic; even major universities seldom have much more than do small-town public libraries. Despite this, the literature on conjuring is vast, and the Master Index to Magic in Print (published 1967-1975) compiled by Jack Potter and Micky Hades gives one an appreciation of the literature’s extent. This Index contains nearly 6000 pages. No trick methods are described; it is only an index. Almost all major magic libraries are in private hands. Many of the important works are not listed in Books in Print, they can be obtained only from sources known to magicians.

  Conjuring has low status compared with the other arts, despite it being one of the oldest forms of entertainment. There are night clubs, symphony halls and recording studios devoted to music, and theatres to drama, but there is almost nothing comparable for the art of magic. Many magicians are forced to travel to earn a living, and even the biggest names may stay in any one venue for only a week; long engagements are rare. Conjurors are also marginal to show business. Rock stars, movie actors, and TV personalities receive more attention. (There is one exception to this, namely Houdini—the greatest showman ever. Today all schoolchildren know his name. He was a trickster figure of extraordinary proportions.) Although a number of prominent people have made magic their hobby (e.g., George Bush, Norman Schwarzkopf), the role of conjurer is marginal.

  Magicians’ organizations are distinctive, and they are not comparable to unions or other professional groups that have objective criteria for qualifications and competence. In many magic societies, rank amateurs and seasoned professionals are all involved, and the groups are usually headed by those with amateur status. Because of the secretive nature of magic, much information cannot be given to outsiders; revealing secrets destroys the effects. However at meetings and conventions, performers can find people with whom they can share ideas and discuss methods. Conjuring is a hobby that cuts across class lines, and magic conventions
often promote great camaraderie. There is temporary leveling or even inversion of outside statuses; within magic, carnies may be held in higher regard than medical doctors. Thus magic fraternities provide a measure of communitas.

  Trickster Characteristics of Conjurors

  The relationship between the trickster character-type and magicians seems obvious, but surprisingly, there is almost no literature addressing it. As far as I can tell, virtually all those pursuing psychological theories of the trickster have missed this exemplar.7 Within magic, there has been only fleeting mention of the association.8 Though the logo of the International Brotherhood of Magicians includes the image of the Roman god Mercury, few members seem to be aware of it or what it signifies.

  Mythological trickster characters are typically male, and this is reflected in conjuring. In fact women constitute only 5% of the membership of the International Brotherhood of Magicians, the largest magic organization in the U.S. Trickster figures are also frequently solitary creatures, and sociologist Michael Carroll has shown that many trickster animals have habits of isolation. Likewise, magicians are somewhat solitary. Long hours of practice alone typify the early years of many conjurors, and they generally perform solo or, at most, with a small supporting cast; rarely are large groups involved.

  The trickster issue of sexuality can be raised. Though I know of no formal survey of magicians’ sexual preferences, in my experience, conjurors are relatively open about acknowledging the homosexuality and unusual sexual behavior of some of their fellow entertainers. on the basis of statistical percentages, their sexual preferences almost certainly differ from the general population. A fair number of magic performers incorporate ribaldry in their acts, and magic magazines not infrequently carry discussion of “blue” material and its appropriateness, or otherwise, for various venues. Magicians’ affinity for the crude was illustrated by an incident in a promotional effort for oreo cookies. In 1991, the International Brotherhood of Magicians (IBM) and the Society of American Magicians (SAM) helped arrange auditions for magicians to work in grocery stores to promote oreos. In the one-page flyer sent out, auditioners were warned, with emphasis in capital letters, not to use profanity or vulgarity. The magic organizations deemed it necessary to bring this point to the conscious awareness of their members who were auditioning. I wonder whether any other group of performers would require such a warning, since it was clear that the oreo promotions were to be in grocery stores.

  Supernatural And Liminal Features of Conjuring

  Magic performances are a bit like modern religious ritual; for some they seem silly, childish, or puzzling, but for others they can evoke uneasy feelings of the supernatural. Interpretation poses problems for audiences. Although virtually all academics understand that stage magicians use tricks, not all of the general public does. I have been cautioned by religiously conservative people that legerdemain is demonic, and I know quite a few magicians who have received similar warnings, including some who primarily perform at children’s parties. Yet even sophisticated audiences do not completely escape the ambiguity.

  More than any other form of entertainment, magic evokes ideas of supernatural power. Trickery played an important role in the supernatural manifestations of shamans. Some of the earliest written accounts of conjuring describe methods used to promote religious belief, such as the temple tricks of the Greeks described by Hero of Alexandria. The association between trickery and the supernatural is longstanding, yet full comprehension of magic’s appeal remains something of a puzzle and is perhaps paradoxical. Demonstrations of power can be threatening, but also amusing.

  Conjuring illusions have parallels with mystical experiences. Many classic stage illusions feature themes of death, dismemberment, and supernatural beings. Cremation, decapitation, impaling, and levitation are all part of the stage performer’s repertoire. Similar imagery is found in shamanic visions, LSD trips, visionary experiences, certain psychotic episodes, and even some UFO accounts. Rogan Taylor’s book The Death and Resurrection Show (1985) discusses the parallels at length. Mystical experiences are more common than most people realize, and they can have great impact. Like mysticism, conjuring provides immediate and direct experience. Whereas books, TV and film can provide similar imagery, conjuring loses its power with the distance and abstraction inherent in those media.

  Bizarre Magic

  Bizarre magic is a small, modern-day subspecialty of conjuring in which dark supernatural themes are explicit. Performers sometimes don hooded robes, at altars with chalices of (stage) blood, and other performances involve phony séances where evil entities manifest. Bizarre magic emerged from pseudo-spiritism and mentalism around 1967, and though there may be only a few hundred aficionados,

  there have been several periodicals and quite a number of books devoted to the topic. The spectators are primarily insiders such as mentalists and other bizarrists. In much of this genre the supernatural element is too strong for lay audiences and is thus not commercially viable.

  This branch of magic raises clear, pertinent questions; the problem of explaining magic’s appeal and even its existence is most acute here. The attraction cannot be accounted for as a wish to “evoke a sense of wonder or the mysterious” rather the performances provoke a sense of danger and dread—a more immediate version of horror than encountered in movies or in books. The psychology behind it can illuminate important issues.

  Much bizarre magic is not performed to entertain, influence or educate the public. It seems to be more for the gratification of the performers and a very small cultic audience. The supernatural has an undeniable impact on them; many display a preoccupation and fascination with occult and supernatural themes, and some of the most active participants in this genre are noted for their anti-religious feelings. Issue number 666 of Genii, a general-interest magic magazine, carried tricks by bizarrists including one using a St. Christopher’s

  14

  medal, and others involved the theme of the beast of the Biblical Book of Revelations.

  The writers in that issue of Genii (April 1992) ridiculed religion and parodied rituals. The question is: why? Perhaps they were trying to reassure themselves that such powers are not “real.” After all they spend countless hours writing about paranormal phenomena, simulating them, and attending conventions with like-minded persons. They cultivate a mystique, groom their public personas, and encourage non-magicians to see them as controlling occult forces. The paranormal is often destabilizing (anti-structural), and their “rituals of protection” (i.e., of parody and ridicule) may help them maintain their equilibrium. They may wish to avoid a too sustained involvement with the occult. If the supernatural did not hold such power, a few words of rational explanation should banish any problem.

  On the other hand, perhaps some of the aficionados become desensitized and wanted a stronger “kick,” a more immediate contact with supernatural themes. Perhaps they needed to deal with emotionally charged issues that are only partly conscious.

  These proffered explanations are not complete, but they point directions that explanations can be sought. Later chapters will discuss the wide appeal of supernatural horror fiction, and that is pertinent to understanding bizarre magic.

  Mentalism

  Mentalism is the branch of conjuring devoted to simulating psychic phenomena. Mentalists perform mind-reading feats, predict newspaper headlines, and demonstrate telepathy. These performers are some of the most trickster-like within the magic fraternity. As with other trickster characters, they typically perform alone, and I can think of no instance in which a mentalist used a large cast for public performances. During their acts, much of the audience believes they are witnessing genuine psi because mentalists intentionally blur the distinctions between the genuine and the fake. Much of their literature encourages performers to foster belief in the paranormal and even to claim that they possess genuine psychic abilities themselves. Mentalists have had a long association with mediums and psychics, and some do readings at psychic fairs
and séances at spiritualist camps.

  There are far fewer mentalists than regular magicians, and there have been some antagonisms between the two groups. Episcopal priest William Rauscher and atheist James Randi, both magicians and both upholders of orthodoxy, have suggested that mentalists do a disservice and mislead the public, leaving them vulnerable to charlatans, and giving them a false view of the world. Magic historian David Price as well as J. B. Rhine expressed opinions similar to Rauscher and Randi. Needless to say, mentalists have not always accorded these views a warm reception, and Marcello Truzzi, a sociologist and mentalist, has provided a useful analysis of some of the conflicts. Truzzi pointed out that what is and is not “psychic” is a very difficult distinction to make, especially outside of the laboratory. He noted that a certain amount of illusion in life is healthy, and that even those mentalists who do psychic counseling may be providing as much or more of a service than psychiatrists and other so-called mental health professionals. The ethical issues are fuzzy.

 

‹ Prev