fictional magic 論壇討論

整理 by chi chi

fran gomez
Fictional magic.
A magician when he interprets his magic does so by expressing an attitude towards it. In my limited experience and also limited
knowledge I can distinguish these two possibilities: 
- Denial of the existence of the trick. It could be the case, for example, of many presentations of Mentalism. 
- Do not hide the existence of the trick and even use this knowledge of the viewer in order to break the schemes (intellectual
shock) by false leads and / or any other stratagem. 
The point is that I recently attended a conference Kiko Pastur and other Ricardo Rodriguez in which both speak of a current
conception, trend (or as I should call), driven by Gabi Pareras that is the magic Fiction or fictional Magic. 
I have seen vivid examples of this trend, of presentation? magica in both conferences but I would love to be able to read more
about her. I'm really curious because I get the impression that this type of magic invites viewers to not even want to think about
the existence of the trick because the atmosphere created makes for itself that this questioning is absurd and unwanted, which
seems very interesting .. 
How do you see it? 
Do you know if it is possible to get hold of Gabi's essay-study where he exposes his theoretical basis on this? 
Thank you!

Ezequiel's 
Well I will try to tell how little I know about it. 
The best way is to differentiate fictional magic from real magic. 
The real magic, for example, is Tamariz, 
Tamariz makes magic with cards, his game is based on the choice of a card, a card, a deck, etc. 
Fictional magic is based on taking this to another plane, for example , a deck, becomes a relog, a card becomes an hour. 
The game is the same, but the difference is in the presentation. 
A great example of fictional magic is Rene, he takes you away from the world of cards to take you to the world of a bar and a
young lady. 
Magic, all magic is fiction, but Tamariz always brings you to reality,
for example, with the car game, the RESALTA which is a deck, which is a card, which is a normal car. 
remarks that it is mixed, that it did not see it, that it does not know what it is, etc. 
and always sells or shows you that it was pure MAGIC. 
Rene in your game the 3 crumbs, takes you out of the world of reality, does not want to show you a cup and three crumbs, wants
to show you a Chinese, the moon and a bottle. 
in both cases magic is seen, but in the fictional one another parallel world is added, another thing to imagine 
in the real remains in the world of the visual, which is and always will be a deck, a card etc. 
There are also games that are netamenta fictional and others real. 
The cublites are real, always 3 are shown, and 3 balls with all the effects they have.
Now if you replace those 3 balls with three friends and 3 houses, it starts being fictional magic. Well, I think something like that
must be. 
if someone more experienced knows more about it. 
I listen and I learn Ezequiel's 
Thanks for the info Ezequiel. 

fran gomez
I find this very interesting that you comment on the "flavor" that remains to the viewer after witnessing the magic. And that's
where maybe I see the biggest difference between Realistic Magic and Fictional Magic. 
I believe that Realistic Magic creates a need in the viewer to figure out the trick. If you avoid this trap during the magic
interpretation and you invite the viewer to discover it (false clues) and in the end it does not succeed. Is not it very likely that you
feel frustrated because you did not succeed?
On the other hand, from what I understand of Fictional Magic, in this case this does not happen. The trap, although the magician
does not deny it and the spectator knows of its existence, does not play any role in the magical interpretation, it is not given no
importance Therefore the effect varies, right? It is not so much an intellectual shock but a ... emotional captivation ?. Well, as you
can see I am very fish in this matter .. any comment is greatly appreciated. 

Ezequiel's 
if fran is that way, as you say 
in real magic, he does not feel frustrated, he feels mental fatigue. 
in the real the spectator thinks or says, "my letter can not be in the wallet" 
in the fiction the viewer says "please that my letter is inside the wallet" 
in the real reason is motivated and mobilized for the reason . 
in the fictional the emotion or feelings are motivated, and the viewer moves through them. 
Like this way of presenting magic, it is not something new, it has been around for several decades, but it is only a matter of taste.

luis vicente
I must clarify that I am in favor of making presentations of the "fictional" type Without knowing it, and unconsciously I have
always tended to it, they seem to me more beautiful and there is no direct intellectual challenge to the spectator. Although it is
inevitable, then say: how did you do it? You're not going to get rid of that, since it's worse than they know. 
What I had never considered is that ALL THE SESSION be of this style. I find it difficult to keep the fiction for so long, say one
hour. What is your opinion?
In my view, I do not think that the theory of false tracks is incompatible with this style. Using it so that the viewer is cut off
possible plausible solutions, although erroneous. As Juan says, if you drop the coin on the table, remove the clue that it is made of
silver paper. If it is borrowed it will not be tricked ... And so on, without saying it but thinking about the coherence of the fiction. 
The truth is that I do not know in detail the thoughts of Gabi. So any contribution would be very good.

Ezequiel's 
the truth is very difficult to make fictional magic, and especially a whole
hour, but the best example is to see a thematic routine, for example a goblin in a forest, with trees and plants, etc. etc. 
Gaby's teroia I do not know it perfectly, but what I do know, is that the second generation that studies this reoria. 
the magic or the theory of tamariz is applicable to everything, the fictional is only presentation, so it can have all the theory of
magic, such as false clues, control of attention, economy of movements etc.
If in itself it is very difficult to do traditional magic, imagine adding a parallel story, there is a game of gabi in which a deck plays
with time, and when it ends it says now I am going to give you 5 seconds of life to use it when your end comes That's fictional
magic, that's the flavor it gives you, it gives you a message, not an effect. 
If it's easier for you to do magic that tells stories, it's because you're good at it. 
But let's move forward a little more, to understand its difficulty, The person who sees us acting can only do one thing at a time, or
rather we should do one thing at a time. 
If we mix we have to see without distraction that we mix, if we talk we just have to listen to what we say. both things at the same
time, they cover each other and lose their strength and credibility. 
In the game of tamariz, ask them to mix the deck, while they mix the parody that removes the tablecloth, that moves the table, that
shows that it is made of glass, and then draws all the attention in which it mixes the deck again . he wants to make sure that the
deck is mixed.
In the case of Rene, when he wants to transmit something with the word, he leaves the cards on the mat, prefers or wants them to
only listen to him and not to be distracted by the movements of the hand. 
The fictional talk is not to cover the technique, on the contrary the technique is shown, how many times great magicians made a
control in front of the eyes of the public, but to get to that point you have to have a very clean technique, very transparent, highly
polished , to the point that it is a normal movement, that the existence of a technique is not suspected. 
But many confuse when using the talk to cover the technique, and I think that is a mistake.
Also the fictional takes a lot of presentation technique, for example I study a few years foniatria, locution for the single echo of
having a good you, a good modulation of the mouth and good sound, you have to read a lot of poetry, to understand the pauses,
the changes of rhythms and tones with the vos. 
By telling a story, anyone does it, but telling a story or poetry well done, cam practices beyond magic. 
That's why I doubt that something is easier than another, the easiest thing is always to do it wrong, either way both fictional and
real are extremely difficult, and with this I emulate a big "There's nothing easy on the way of the artist ".
But again, if it's easier for you, I think it's all said, they have a poet inside you, which makes it easier for you. 

angel
I just went on to comment on what has been said about the three friends and such. The fictional magic, or at least that of Gabi,
does not pretend to tell a story directly, but rather to give it a presentational meaning. I mean, the presentations that one day we
went to a bar where there was the father of a famous and magical shoemaker ... They are not the fictional style proposed by Gabi. 
He always says that the good thing about this style of magic is that the public annuls his disbelief. He also always comments on
the bad of the magic fiction that is that the story you eat to the effect (as happens to Lavand sometimes).
A clear example of magic fiction is the flower of Coleridge. Where some verses are quoted, something like: "Imagine that you are
sleeping, imagine you are dreaming, imagine that you dream that you are in paradise, it would be beautiful." Imagine that
someone gives you a flower and when you wake up you find that flower in your hand . " Gabi gives the deck and counts 10 cards,
extends them and asks them to touch one while telling this, to remember the number and have the package in their hand and there
is exactly the number of letters more than the number of the one touched. A seemingly simple effect.

Another example of him. Gabi says that she is going to give you a gift that nobody has ever made, but she has something good
and something bad. The good thing is that you will give 5s of life and the bad thing is that when you are on your deathbed you
will remember that magician who once gave you 5s of life. The game is basically a transposition of two cards.

Ezequiel's 
As far as I know, I do not think that Lavand covers an effect with a talk, that's why when I want to tell something, the letters say
what he has to say, he pauses, and there is still the effect. 
If it is true what you decide about the story, I may pass or exaggerate a bit, but the point is the same as we all point to. 

fran gomez
I am writing an example that Ricardo Rodriguez comments in his lecture that, at least to me, has clarified a bit more the concept:

Started by Ricardo Rodriguez

The effect of the paper ball that remains suspended in the air. This is the treatment of the fiction proposed by Manuel Villar
(magician of the SEI): 

The magician folds a paper napkin and lights a cigar, places the cigar a few centimeters below the paper so that the smoke
reaches it, the paper is suspended. Villar attributes to the smoke that comes from the cigar (cause) the fact that the paper is
floating (consequence).

In this case, presentation and effect create a joint fiction. The one leans on the other and vice versa. 
Ezequiel, I think that eidanyoson means that Fictional Magic is easier to assimilate for the spectators than realist Magic . 
It is creating a fiction supported by a presentation and an effect and the viewer accepts it because they are coherent with each
other. Just like when we watch a movie or read a fiction novel, right? If both things are plausible in their context, it is absurd to
question them even though we know that what we see is not real. 
On the other hand, in Realistic MagicIt seems to me that there is an intellectual struggle that can (of course not always ...) be
assimilated in a negative way by the spectators. 
On the other hand, Realistic Magic may have a greater impact. Magic happens constantly eluding our common reality and from
the absolutely real, the inexplicably unreal happens. There are no disturbances of any kind, which in fiction may occur. 
For example .. If we see a monkey of 30 meters in the fiction we are not surprised. On the other hand, if we see it in the portal of
our house, we will probably shit on top of it. 
Can something like this happen between Magic Fiction and Realistic Magic?
drakonis
But Lavand not only stops his technique to talk, it is that his technique is to make magic with his words ... 
Also, I think he knows how to interweave all this, if you watch the game of the rate and the 3 crumbs, there is much to learn from
this matter. Because in the end, in the climax, the words of Lavand confuse the mind to perform the technique and produce the
magical effect. 
And at the beginning it spends almost 1 minute and a half in speech. What indicates in effect that if it is as Ezekiel says; 
"As far as I know, I do not think that lavand covers an effect with a talk, that's why when I want to tell something, let the letters
say what they have to say, pause, and there is still the effect. "
More is not like that every time, it seems that it is because he shows that, but when the attention of the spectator is serene by his
words, other things happen that only the magician knows. 
In short, René, one of the greatest magicians ... 
PS I also barely discover the fictional side of my magic.

rubiales
I think you're getting involved. Fictional magic has nothing to do with telling stories, that's different. Look carefully at the quote
by Ricardo Rodriguez: 
"The effect of the paper ball that is suspended in the air." This is the treatment of the fiction proposed by Manuel Villar (magician
of the SEI): 
The magician folds a paper napkin and He lights a cigar, places the cigar a few centimeters below the paper so that the smoke
reaches it, the paper is suspended, Villar attributes to the smoke that the cigar gives off (cause) the fact that the paper is floating
(consequence). " 
Villar attributes to the smoke that comes from the cigar (cause) the fact that the paper is floating (consequence).
Normally, we by our powers, we make the paper float in the air. However, here it is different, the paper floats because it is the
"logical" , everyone knows that the paper is less dense than the concentrated smoke of a cigarette and therefore can be sustained
on it.
This is Fictional magic, nothing to do with telling stories. It is like the portable aguero of animated cartoons, the coyote has a
portable hole ACME brand that places it where it wants and passes through it. We magicians can use it so that the coins go
through a table. We take a coin and say it will pass through the table, we try but it does not happen, then we take a piece of black
felt in the shape of a circle we leave it on the table saying it is a portable hole, we throw the coin into the hole and as "logical
"That is, it goes through the table. 
This is fictional magic, what we do is bring fiction to life and mix them.

mystical
Another example, if I'm not mistaken, would be the creation of a physical space in which magic happens inside. A while ago they
showed me a spinning the aces in which an object was previously placed on the table and it was said that the space that was on
that object constituted a magic bubble where the law of desire, of magic and beyond it, prevailed, that of reason, of physics. Every
time he showed the cards outside the bubble, nothing happened, but if he did it inside and the desire was asked, an ace would
turn. I think the presentation was from Gabi, but I can not say for sure. Greetings.

mystical
Originally Posted by dcmoreno 
then the game of water and oil would be of this type? 
is that I think I've lost myself long ago in this thread
Come on, I venture and if I'm wrong they correct me. The game water and oil could be done creating a fictional world if, for
example, we used a tube with water and oil, and to shake it and show the letters they would appear mixed, but just at the moment
in which both liquids are differentiated in the tube the letters are extended, these are separated by colors. It would be the
attribution of magical power to the event that occurred inside the tube. Magic is not made by the magician, but moves from the
tube to the cards. 
Another option would be to make the game with the mat divided into two colors, red and black (as seen in NxA) and let the cards
take the color of the side of the mat, would be entering that fictional world in which is space of the mat that makes the letters are
one color or another.
Let's see if I've heard about this from the fictional worlds or I'm more lost than at the beginning. 
Of course the idea opens many doors of presentation, and above all, I think one of the most attractive things (discussed above) is
the elimination of conflict, of the magician-spectator challenge. 

fran gomez
Mystical, yes, I think both examples of presentation are right. 
Let's continue with the water and oil: 
- Realistic magic: The magician mixes the letters one by one, snaps the fingers and the letters separate. 
- Fictional magic: The content of the tube is at rest and therefore the letters are separated. The contents of the tube are shaken, the
letters are mixed. 
And I wonder ... Could we distinguish Fictional Magic from Realistic Magic from the point of view of who (or what) causes the
magic effect? Or would it be an absurd generalization?

mystical
From what I understand about the concept, I think it is based on the "what" the magic produces. That "what" can be an object, a
physical space, a ritual, etc. Always something different from a supposed magical power that the magician has. 

However it would not be worth the "I have a magic wand and when playing with it the letters are separated in colors", it has to be
something representative, something that emulates a parallel world where magic happens. Or maybe if it's worth it and it's the
simplest expression of the concept. The truth is that I do not have it clear. 

Without having little knowledge about these ideas (to see if someone who knows manifests) I ask myself: Is it essential that, at
least at some point in the presentation, both worlds, fictional and real, face each other? I think so.

For example, in the case that commented on the magic bubble and the turning of the aces, it is essential to show the cards several
times throughout the routine outside the bubble and show that nothing happens, to be able to face the reality, the magic of the
bubble, inside of which things do happen. 

bbowe
Although I'm afraid I'm light years away from Gabi (I do not think I'll ever be up to it), almost a third kind of magic is missing. 
The negation of magic. 
It is used mostly in dramatized children's magic. 
In order not to "touch" the repertoire of other partners, I bring my own idea to light again. 
An elf comes onstage. The elf does NOT do magic (the witch does, but that's another topic). But the elf is a magical being who
"happens" to magic. 
Throughout the show, the magic of the elf is denied. However, the public discovers that the things that "happen" to the elf are
magical (a rope examined by the public goes through the body, a clay vase is folded and put in a pocket, the flames are
transformed into flowers. ..).
To summarize it in some way: The magician refuses to do magic but this happens before the eyes of the spectators that if they are
witnesses of it.

victor
Hi all. I allow myself to interfere in this subject, due to the knowledge acquired last year in Montegrande, a town in the north of
my country, and where we had the privilege, around fifty Spanish, Argentinian, Brazilian and, of course, Chilean magicians to
share with Gabi Pareras 48 hrs. . of seminar, where he presented his magical conception, theory and games. Needless to say, it was
one of the most exciting experiences of my career as a magician. 
According to what has been learned, Fictional Magic is a personal conception of Gabi, therefore, it adapts to his experience and
demands, and as he says, bad influence of El Llantiol where he became accustomed to an avid and respectful public. 
The magicfictional is a new theory and like any new theory, it contains the previous one, the prevailing paradigm until today
(Realistic Magic) and it is not the opposite, if not, a complement. 
It is important to clarify that narrative fiction is NOT FICTIONAL MAGIC, therefore what Ezekiel explains does not correspond
to Gabi's conception. 
The denial of the trap, is one of its rules and refers to the magician does not allude to it, because it is not important for
fiction. Continuing with the example of paper held by cigarette smoke. If the magician checks the cigar, passes a ring through the
smoke or his hand to check the absence of threads, immediately sounds an alarm that awakens the viewer and reminds him that
there is a trap and does not allow him to enjoy the fiction that he creates. The paper is supported by smoke. 
In Fictional Magic the spectator passes from being a witness (As in realistic magic) to taking a more active roll, that is, it is the
protagonist of the effect, because it crosses the mirror of the magician's hand. Fictional 
Magicand Realistic Magic can coexist in the same session and we should all be nourished by both, to give variety to our repertoire
and to the emotions generated in the spectators. 
It's funny what generates Gabi and its magic, this is overwhelming, refined and surprising, seeing it give seconds of life in a game,
is giving us all our lives, in those seconds.

mystical
A very important detail to highlight the "denial of the trap". When denying it there is no challenge, only enjoyment on the part of
the spectator. I propose to take a classic effect, and try to apply this theory, changing the presentation. 
What do you think of the idea?

Ezequiel's 
victor lutte 
As this is a discussion, and the discussion is based on exchange of opinions to reach the end of the game, devo take the against, I
hope you understand. 
Last year Gabi was in the capital giving her lecture and show. 
I worked at a themed restaurant called houdini, where everything in that restaurant is magical, and gaby was invited. 
When I closed the crowd and the people left, I was lucky enough to have a coffee alone with Gaby and talk for a few minutes,
although it is not 48 hours, a few minutes serve to meet him. 
One of the things that he told me, or told us since we were 5 or 6 is that this theory, although he finished it, was born with his
father, then the term to create it.
He says that fictional talk is almost nesecario in the theory, because he tries to use a conflict between the visual, the rational and
what is heard. 
The person SEES a letter, LISTEN that it is a car, but not REASON because it moves. 
and the only thing the artist does is to promote that he moves alone. 
eye do not go hand in hand, but the talk serves, with the mere echo of saying that you ragala 5 seconds of life, it is fictional talk,
do not show it with the letters, just says you rgalo 5 seconds of life. 
at the time of executing a game it is not necessary that this fictional talk, but at the time of trasnmitir that message uses 100%
fictional talk, if we think it is impossible to give 5 seconds of life.

Also clarifies another thing, the difference between denying the trick and sell yourself as if you were God. 
He denies the existence of a trick, not with words, not asking to review things. He denies that by just presenting the game. (I
believe in your example you explained it very well). 
But he is finding that you have a gift or that you are God, that's why he starts saying "let's share an experience", "let's make a
game", "I want to show you something, I want to tell you something", "or you I want to give something. " 
Although it seems silly, those words say many things, most importantly, point to something intimate, ask for help or co-operation,
do not know what is going to happen but together they will see it, or just want to give something, this is the emotional point the.
Well nothing more to add, or subtract, in this interesting subject. 
I leave. Ezequiel 

ricardo
Well, I believe that water and oil is an essentially fictional game, its structure leads to that. The water and oil are separated, then
the aqueous charts are separated from the oily ones. Logical. You can add components of real magic, as taught several to show the
true intercalation, but that does not move away essentially from its fictional structure. 
Ricardo Rodríguez talked about the benefits of mixing real and fictional magic to maximize benefits and reduce setbacks that may
cause. 
On the other hand, I do believe that Lavand presentations come to eat the effect from time to time. It is his style, but the
experience may be more poetic than magical, although in that each one chooses his way.
Ezequiel's
You should see a whole show, because if you do not see magic in Rene is something that I doubt. 
Although he has great presentations and poetry, his magic is very good, his techniques, everything, I think that Rene is not only
art, it is magic, I think he has a lot of technical magic his shows. 
but good are opinions.

ricardo
I have the DVDs that he commercialized with two performances. They are not explanatory dvds but complete unipersonal. I like
Lavand and I think he gets a performance of the highest level in the global range, but I also think that sometimes, either because of
his charisma or presentations, I do not even realize the magic he does. I remember their scripts better than their games. Of course
it has technique and structure. What I am saying is that it is HIS way and that following my conception, the games with the
fictional presentation are eaten in some way. 
On the other hand I do not get tired of seeing it, and it would make me immensely happy to witness some live performance. 
Magic can be like movies, and there are genres. Lavand represents the author's magic, his and perfect within his person. But
personally I prefer something more balanced.

angel
I do not believe that René's magic can be classified as fictional magic. Yes it has games with fictional dye, but most of its magic
does not correspond.

victor
Ezequiel, please do not think that rebutting with me is offending me, I am a man who likes the argument, but yes, with
arguments. That's why I took longer than usual to respond, I had to order my ideas and look for good arguments.

My answer will be based on some studies of the Concepción Mágica Ficcional (As you prefer to call it Gabi) acquired some
months before the aforementioned Encuentro de Montegrande. For many of us who were there, it was shocking, but immensely
revealing, to study and later, to hear from Gabi himself his magical conception. That's why, being a teenager magician (I've only
been in magic for 26 years) I understand the lack of clarity in some concepts to which they are exposed, with respect to the
Magical Fictional Conception. I do not want to forget about Fran Gómez who is the one who opened the thread of discussion and I
will try to answer some questions made by him and subsequently by others, because I believe I am certain of what I am talking
about. 

The magicfictional is not an invention of Gabi, nor is it an invention of Ascanio's theory, both analyzed what other magicians
already did and named it and ordered it in what we know today as its theories. From this it follows that the levitation of paper with
the smoke of Manuel Villar's cigar, was not invented under the Magical Fictional Conception, however, fits perfectly in this
current. 

NARRATIVE FICTION IS NOT FICTIONAL MAGIC . Rene Lavan, grand master, as well as all of us create a narrative
argument to develop an illusion, but this argument is focused from a Realistic Magical Conception. I literally transcribe a letter
between Javier Piñeiro and Gabi:
As Tamariz says in his metaphor, he makes the public cross the mirror to immerse themselves in the world that the magician
proposes. Thus, the spectator, surrendering to the weight of the evidence, can not do anything other than affirm the reality of what
is experienced and cross the mirror, bowed down and defeated, psychically exhausted by the instinctive struggle maintained with
the magician. The truth is that the magician hides under the disguise of a request a demand: the one who is the spectator who has
to adapt to the limitations of the magician, be less suspicious, less difficult to convince, and cross on his own initiative the mirror
that it separates him from a "rainbow" promised that his blindness, very understandable on the other hand, does not let him see if
not when his "critical self", his survival instinct is surrendered and offered in sacrifice.Actually, the one who has to cross the
mirror is the magician . The viewer is already well where he is and does not need more. And it is the magician, in any case, who
must provoke his "suppression of disbelief." Only that this can not be voluntary, as in the other arts, but as in the dream, where
one only knows that he has fallen asleep upon awakening. 
"THE MACHINE OF TIME" (I mean the game of GEC Vol. 3. Page 601) is a work of art in the hands of Gabi, the poetry behind
the effect, the way to start the argument (her first words refer to a gift) the displacement, the first letter, the second, the magic
moment and the end, a work of art. When we analyze this illusion in Montegrande, I remember references to the "Dream, of
which we became aware that we have fallen asleep upon awakening", since we were immersed in fiction, and we were in the
middle of it, but the consciousness of being there we did not have it, but Once the experience is over, that is, we cross the mirror
of the magician's hand, due to a wonderful transition to fiction. Gabi, when referring to crossing the mirror, says: "The magician
crosses the mirror and takes the spectator by the hand,

WHEN THE FICTION EFFECTS THE EFFECT. This argument refers to the fact that posing a very large fiction could harm the
effect, just as we should be aware that the force of the effect could eat the fiction if we do not find an adequate fiction, that is, we
must look for a fair balance, but this is of Perogrullo, since in both magical conceptions we must maintain this balance. That
magical fiction will eat the effect, does not refer to using fiction (or talk) to hide the inner life or trick of the effect. 

MISTICO proposes to take a classic effect and apply this theory, but before commenting on an idea of "Water and Oil", but it
seems to me, that being a good idea, both phenomena do not correspond as the chemical phenomenon, as it exposes it , does not
justify the magical phenomenon of color separation.

Taking the very good idea of MISTICO, I propose small changes that justify both phenomena: 
- A bottle of water with oil. 
- Three white letters that have written with Red down, "Water" and three white letters that have written with Black down, "Oil",
both groups of Blue back. You can have written, if you prefer, the chemical formulas. 

FIRST: Talk about the chemical phenomenon, show the bottle and then show the formulas of both elements (I think the formulas
are better) on the cards. 
SECOND: Mix the cards and leave them on the table back up. 
THIRD: Mix the bottle of water and oil shaking it strongly with the hand, to leave it on the cards that are on the table and
contemplate how the chemical phenomenon operates (magical moment)
FOURTH: Separate the water and the oil from the jar, lift the cards and show that the magical phenomenon by logical
consequence has also been produced. 

I do not know if explaining this idea of water and oil effect happens to bring some rule of this forum, if so, I ask for the
appropriate apologies, but I think it was necessary to exemplify and continue with the discussion. 

I hope with these extensive words, to clarify something, to Fran Gómez regarding the Magical Fictional Conception and I am
aware, at the same time, that it is impossible to understand this current in its entirety without listening to Gabi himself and
studying his works, discussing them and applying them to personal magic

were going
Sometimes I find it hard to read such long posts, so I am going to try to express my doubts as briefly as possible, to see if I am
understanding on the right track. 

- Realistic magic has an effect that has no possible explanation (or there is pure magic, or there is a hidden trap). Example: D & D 

- The narrative magic presents a parallel story that helps to accept the effect, making it more pleasant, but that does not explain the
event. Example: Lavand. 

- Fictional magic gives the viewer an explanation of why the effect occurs, although it may be an absurd explanation (of course,
what it is is an explanation far removed from the real explanation). Example: paper ball that floats through the smoke.

Thus, the difference between narrative and fictional magic is that the first is metaphorical , and the second
is explanatory . Therefore, and for me, how to pose, the "water and oil" is narrative magic, and not even fictional. The letters are
not water and oil, they are letters. We could make it fictional if they were letters of blue backs and red backs, and we argued that
the colors have different density, and different weight. But with the analogy of water and oil, it is narrative magic.
kiko
Originally Posted by Iban 
Thus, the difference between narrative and fictional magic is that the first is metaphorical , and the second
is explanatory . Therefore, and for me, how to pose, the "water and oil" is narrative magic, and not even fictional. The letters are
not water and oil, they are letters. We could make it fictional if they were letters of blue backs and red backs, and we argued that
the colors have different density, and different weight. But with the analogy of water and oil, it is narrative magic.
In the fictional say that the difference is only "explanatory" can be confusing, if perhaps "fictionally explanatory". That is, there is
a "cause", but it is fictional. 

In addition, fiction can also be metaphorical. 

Classic water and oil is a metaphor, not a fiction, that is clear.

mystical
Started by Kiko 
In the fictional say that the difference is only "explanatory" can be confusing, if perhaps "fictionally explanatory". That is, there is
a "cause", but it is fictional. 
In addition, fiction can also be metaphorical. 
Classic water and oil is a metaphor, not a fiction, that is clear.
Back to the topic. We have in effect X, which can occur for different reasons: 

a) Powers of the magician. 

b) Something without explanation, happens because yes. (Here, perhaps the division that Ignoto adds would come in. 

C) It happens because of a fictional cause. Something that has no logic Is that it? 

Metaphors may or may not exist within each one. 

What remains unclear are the requirements to make it fictional.
Can we talk about giving an explanation to the effect that occurs but that explanation is clearly invented and impossible? That is,
when the game of the time machine is made, magic is attributed to a letter that is a time machine. Is treating a la carte as a time
machine a metaphor, and turning it in the opposite direction to go back in time can be the fiction that gives meaning to the effect? 
Come on ... I ask because I'm intrigued by the subject, and I'm not clear about the "requirements" that turn the effect into fictional
magic. 

kiko
Originally Posted by Mistico 
Back to the topic. We have in effect X, which can occur for different reasons: 

a) Powers of the magician. 

b) Something without explanation, happens because yes. (Here, perhaps the division that Ignoto adds would come in. 

C) It happens because of a fictional cause. Something that has no logic Is that it? 

Metaphors may or may not exist within each one. 

What remains unclear are the requirements to make it fictional.

Can we talk about giving an explanation to the effect that occurs but that explanation is clearly invented and impossible? That is,
when the game of the time machine is made, magic is attributed to a letter that is a time machine. Is treating a la carte as a time
machine a metaphor, and turning it in the opposite direction to go back in time can be the fiction that gives meaning to the effect? 
Come on ... I ask because I'm intrigued by the subject, and I'm not clear about the "requirements" that turn the effect into fictional
magic. 

Hugs.
In my opinion: 
The fictional "cause" always has "logic". That is, it is coherent, it has its "rules". For example in Star Wars there is the law of
gravity and "force" can counteract it. It is not free: it follows coherent laws or rules in its "fictional" context, which is why it is
plausible. 
The "powers of the magician" if with coherent and well contextualized they only represent a form of fictional magic. Yes No
No. Many times this is NOT explicit (but implicit in the magician's attitude, gestures, etc.) and doubt remains because the
interpretation of the "cause" is open or ambiguous.
"Something without explanation" can be fictional. For example levitation by smoke does not need "explanation", because the
association of fictional cause "smoke & suspension" is immediate, and generates by itself the phenomenon or experience of
magical fiction.

fran gomez
Originally Posted by Mistico 
A very important detail to highlight the "denial of the trap". When denying it there is no challenge, only enjoyment on the part of
the spectator. I propose to take a classic effect, and try to apply this theory, changing the presentation. 
What do you think of the idea?
Rather than denying it, I would say that I do not pay any attention, either positively or negatively ... that "the trap" does not play
any role in the fiction, but that it is the "fictional cause" that takes all the merit of the effect happening. 
The idea seems great. Do you propose any effect?

fran gomez
Originally Posted by eidanyoson 
Use a letter in which you write metal (instead of the signature) and put a magnet on it to go up? 
I'm not sure if that could be worth ...
In that case the fiction would be that if you write a name of an element in a letter the letter happens to have the same
characteristics as this, right? 
Maybe the fiction is too big for the effect or, maybe, we have to continue demonstrating that fiction. For example, it would be
great if after writing metal the sound that the letter had when hitting something was metallic and / or that it weighed more than
normal. Or perhaps to reinforce the fiction we would have to give more options by putting, for example 'pen' and that with a blow
the letter levitated or 'chewing gum' and that it stays stuck on the ceiling. 
I do not know, I already tell you that they are lucubrations without much sense and looking only at the effect, the method is
another story.
The main complication that I see when creating a fictional presentation is to measure yourself in the fiction and that it is not too
big for the effect that I am going to make. I think that once we have an idea we should consider: 
If this fiction were real .. what could be done? 
And once you know ... try to do it. 

were going
Started by Kiko 
" Something without explanation " can be fictional. For example levitation by smoke does not need "explanation", because the
association of fictional cause "smoke & suspension" is immediate, and generates by itself the phenomenon or experience of
magical fiction.
I guess we agree, although we interpret the words differently. 

Your " something without explanation " I interpret it as "I do not go and loose a roll giving a philometaphysical class about the
density of the smoke and the letter". I hope that "something without explanation" does not mean " inexplicable ", which is what I
would use that phrase for. In fictional magic there is always a quasi-physical explanation of what happens, even if the logic of the
explanation is ... childish, or absurd, or erroneous; and although that explanation is not ... "relate".
An example of fictional magic for the ambitious letter ... I can not think of an explanation, plausible or not, of why a card goes
through half a deck to get the first. The one that proposes eidan ... If the letter is metallic and I put a magnet on top, it will make
the letter stick by trapping the others, but not crossing them ... 
Many metaphors can be made, but it depends on what effects, it is difficult to find them a justification. 
Perhaps one way to make fictional magic with the ambitious letter is precisely to tell what really happens . Let's see if I can
explain myself. 
Imagine that instead of the ambitious letter, we call it the hypnotic letter.It is a letter that always wants to be on top, and when you
try to lower it, it is changed by any other, so that it continues up, and hypnotizes you so that you think you are seeing it go
down. (That is, what really happens). However, the viewer sees the opposite: see that it falls to the middle of the deck! But you
tell him it's a mirage ... a trick of the hypnotic letter ... 
Ugh, I do not understand. 
This letter deceives you. You think you see her going down to the middle of the deck, but she has not really moved from the back,
and it's not she who goes down, because she always stays up. It is a mirage.
You show seven of clubs. And you say to the viewer: "But this one really is no longer the seven of clubs (as you clearly show it),
because the seven of clubs is really up here" (and point to the back of the deck, and even turn the TOP, which it is an indifferent
one). 
You put the seven of clubs in the middle, and you tell the viewer, "You think it's the seven, but do not be fooled by the hypnotic
card, because in reality this seven you see is a different one, how? seven? Do not trust your eyes ... You're hypnotized ... "
And you lose it. "The seven is still up here, because from above he has never moved ...", and turn over the top card. Now it's a
seven! "You see, it's a hypnotic letter, I take it ... but even if you think it's still seven, it's hypnotized again and it's still up here, it's
not this you see in my hands, even though you're clearly seeing what it is a seven ... " 
Have I explained anything? 
I just completely reversed the ambitious letter. It is no longer about a letter getting lost in the middle of the deck and going up. It is
about a card always staying on top, and creating "mirages" of itself that the magician loses in the middle of the deck, while she
NEVER moves from TOP. 
We can call it the hypnotic letter, or the photocopier of letters. or the card cloner ...
It is still not fictional magic, but it gives possibilities to find a justification that would make it such.

nikolas111
and it could not be the letter that travels in time ... 
and that always stays in a loop of time going back to the past, where it was 3 seconds before ... top ... it would be 
a good way to do the ambitious ... without falling into the context of the letter goes up ... but we returned to the instant in which
the letter was up ... it is no longer the letter that travels, it is us who travel in a temporary vortex that returns to the place where we
were seconds ago ... would be 
like the case of the time machine, but with only 1 letter and repetitively ... (without exceeding) ... 

were going
Not exactly, but it could be the basis for a fictional explanation. I mean, your explanation is still metaphorical, and it is necessary
to look for the "justification" of WHY that happens (that of time travel). 
One way to make it fictional would be, for example, to have a timeline drawn on the table. An axis of time, where the hours were
painted. 
Put the deck on the axis, and TOP is shown, the ambitious is done, the deck is left shifted on the time axis (for example, forward
two minutes that have passed). And the card is pushed with the finger to the starting point of the axis it was on (backwards in
time). Then it becomes TOP, and it is the original. And so it is repeated continuously.
Now there is an explanation: we move the deck on an axis of time, backwards. Therefore, the deck travels back in time.

kiko
Originally Posted by Iban 
Not exactly, but it could be the basis for a fictional explanation. I mean, your explanation is still metaphorical, and it is necessary
to look for the "justification" of WHY that happens (that of time travel).
The "WHY" does not always have to be explicit. It may be implicit. In fact, for fiction to be credible part of why it has to be
hidden. If we fall into an excessive explanation, a point will come where it will clash with reality and cease to be a credible
justification. 
For example, in the case of suspension by smoke, it is the spectator himself who puts the explanation. That is, the viewer
discovers a "fictional cause" implicit in the image. He does not analyze it too much, he only lives it as an aesthetic phenomenon
with a certain coherence. If we tried to explain profusely why the smoke counteracts the gravity surely the experience would lose
credibility and power.
Another example: the "dejavú" phenomenon can be self-explanatory enough to be lived as such. On the other hand, an explanation
may not work as well as drawing a timeline on the table. Besides, that really does not "explain" the process, it just illustrates it. 
It is easy to look for "free" explanations and difficult to find explanations / credible events. 
The question is not so much searching for a "WHY" well justified and coherent, but that the fiction is "accepted" by the viewer,
and that the experience is perceived and lived as such. 
That it becomes a phenomenon.