Too Good To Be Too Perfect
by Kenton Knepper

A student recently wrote to me asking me about the “too good” or “too perfect” theory:

“If there’s no place for the magic to happen, they will assume that no magic did happen.” I put quotes only because I think that is very close to what
he said, not my words. I was wondering about this “too perfect” or “too good” theory in my current effect and presentation.

Here is a portion of my response to this student.

I am not so sure about the old “too good” now known sometimes as Johnson’s “too
perfect” theory.

Yes, you can perform some effects that suggest what the solution may be, depending on how you perform them. However, if you pointed to any building and said, “Kenton – I’ll give you big bucks if you can make the building I choose disappear right this instant”, and I did just that, would that tell you how I did it?

No. But isn’t the effect “too good” or “too magical” or “too perfect”? Yep.

So I hear young performers reiterate things a lot as if these ideas are absolutes, rather than thinking carefully about what they are repeating.

I know you do think, and that’s why I mention it.

Yes, sometimes if you leave people no way out but the solution, then they will arrive at the solution. But look how long metal bending has been around before bad performers began killing it off as unrealistic. For decades I performed metal bending (there was even an article on me doing it in the High School newspaper back when I was in school) and metal bending is about as “perfect” as can be. Yet even most mentalists and magicians had no idea how most of it worked really back then.

Only when bad performers of metal bending, as well as a few real performers, tipped what they were doing did bending become the trite thing on the local DVD magic shelf. Before that though, it was so magical, so realistic, no one knew what to think about it at all - except that it might be real. And it might still be real, in the hands of some.

As you say, it is more a matter of focus and as Fitzkee said “directing attention” (not mis-directing) properly.

In fact, you can see the idea of directing attention, intent and focus in the more common Tarot decks as Key 1 or Tarot card #1 - The Magician.

Rather than “too good” you might think instead of “too obvious” and choose how to better convince an audience than lead them to a direct solution.

I believe a “too obvious” theory might serve us better.

I don’t mean by that to merely give audiences any old false solution so that they do not come up with the real answer. Too many performers do that too. They make a big fake palming action, which leads an audience to infer that at the very least this performer is capable of slyly palming things away. That’s fine if the trick you are doing is all about cheating. If the trick is all about mystery or something beyond a typical con man approach, then a fake palming action is out of place. You shouldn’t cheapen the dramatic effect, just to lead people astray from the actual method. That’s what I see far too many performers do. They run away from their methods out of fear, and hope the audiences will follow, but audiences do not have a similar fear of the performer’s methods.

In mentalism, I often use suggestion, subliminal influence, hypnosis and even telepathy as a way to throw people off the logical track. That may seem odd, but as you know much of my work, you can vouch that this method works incredibly well.

Rather than people wondering if I have trick scissors or if I am using psychological or physical forces, my audiences find hypnosis and subliminal influence far more reasonable and likely.

That brings us to what I feel may be the essence of this issue.

Can you offer a more believable reason than the actual method you use?

Work towards offering your audience a more believable method than the one you are actually using, and there is no reason for them to go looking elsewhere for another method. But what makes something more believable?

Performers in magic and mentalism are those who doubt that mental aspects and mystery might seem more pragmatic than complex mechanizations or multi-leveled sleights. Real people tend to get overwhelmed by complexity, and if you offer a simpler, more direct solution, they often go for that one.

It puts “Occam’s Razor” to the test, and proves that theory is a perfect way to generate a lie. “When you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better.”

Wanna bet?

Certainly one can use this theory by the Franciscan friar as a way to delude people and cause all manner of illusion.

Think then of offering simpler, or more believable, solutions than the actual method used. If you cannot think of a believable solution, then consider a simpler one to offer to your audience.

“We all have energy” is a simple statement even a skeptic cannot disregard entirely. That’s a far simpler explanation than what otherwise may be a complex bunch of movements, optical illusions, linguistic deception and near hypnotic suggestion to make an effect occur.

Magicians tend to think they must mis-direct an audience to something other than the method. It is better to direct an audience purposefully. Perhaps the plot or idea in presentation merely needs to be more important as a focal point.

After all, “Dunninger’s Delight” is “too perfect” most nights when I perform it, yet no one comes up with any sensible answer to that. The most common solution is a lay person’s response of “That’s what mentalism is, isn’t it?”

I think then it is more in the staging, the meaning, and most of all the intent and the character of the performer that makes something “too good” or “too perfect” into either a trick, or a realistic experience.

Much will be forgiven a personality that an audience holds in some awe.

A bottom line theory from me then is “give them a simpler reason for what is happening, and they will generally believe it.”

It works for politicians and all manner of influencers.

Yes. Some have even bled for those who have used Occam’s Razor against them. That’s the rub. It’s a dangerous tool. It depends on how you use that tool. Like any tool it may used for wisdom or folly.

Those who think themselves wise are often living in folly.

Simplicity is for the wise, the Zen master, but also the idiot and simpleton.

Simplicity may the direct way to truthfulness, but also to illusion.

Simplicity is simpler than the “too perfect” or “too good” theory.

The “simple” theory may be “too perfect” to be called “too simple”. But that’s fine, as am sure there will be plenty who can muck it up with complications.

Keep in mind that most things can be rectified somewhere near the middle of two extremes. “Too perfect” is an extreme. “Simple” and “complex” are extremes too.

Find a mix or balance.

Magic is alchemy, after all.

Certainly alchemy is magic.

Blend wisely.

Kenton