But I Need to Say Something so You'll Stop

I have a pet peeve, and it's finally time for you to know what it is. I think there's something we can all stop saying, and frankly, it will make the magic world a better place...
📰 Can't get enough Erudite Magic on Sundays? Join my Newsletter and be part of the conversation as often as you'd like: eruditemagic.substack.com

[@EruditeMagic]

📰 Can't get enough Erudite Magic on Sundays? Join my Newsletter and be part of the conversation as often as you'd like: eruditemagic.substack.com

[@michaeljoseph3475]

A good magician doesn't say "I'm a magician and you're not" . A good magician says " I'm a magician and so are you" - Jeff McBride

[@jethro1963]

Far be it for me to question Jeff but that to me smacks of a participation medal. I understand the magic happens in our heads but if we're all magicians what's the point of the guy on the stage. To me it lessens his value, like a crappy teacher being called a facilitator instead of a teacher.

[@dksmagic]

That’s a valid point. Could it be that people onstage or assisting from their place in the audience are the participants and the people watching the action are active spectators?

[@EruditeMagic]

Yes, but if the people are just watching, you don't need a special term for them - they're the audience 😄🤷

[@DougJames-ym9qf]

Jeff McBride was the first magician I ever heard comment on the importance of not referring to audience members as ‘spectators.’ In an April 2014 blog post Jeff wrote: “One of the Burning Man Art Festival mottos is “No Spectators!” In a magic show I think this is a crucial concept to incorporate. When I hear a magician say, “I have the spectator select a card,” I cringe inside. I am aware that they are not conscious of the words they are using. The more conscious we are of our words, the more conscious we can become as performers. Spectators do not pick cards; they watch cards being picked. Participants pick cards. I want everyone involved in the experience, not spectating.”

[@EruditeMagic]

Boom 💥

[@Fredrickconjurer]

I attended a Magic and Mystery school Masterclass in 2001. Jeff talked about participants and not spectators at that time. I’ve heard that John Bannon uses participant in his writings too - although I’ve not read his work.

[@EruditeMagic]

Excellent news! Bannon changed at some point: Smoke & Mirrors, Impossibilia, and Dear Mr. Fantasy all say "spectator," while Destination Zero and Mentalissimo both say "participant" 👍

[@jackAndrews666]

I 100% agree with you. I am currently in the clinical study. People who are involved in clinical studies are tired of being called, “subjects.” Many people involved in clinical studies find the term “subject”” to be insulting. People in clinical studies don’t sit there passively and let doctors do things to us, we participate in the study and therefore the argument is made that we should be called participants. By this same argument, In magic and specifically in mentalism, audience members are participants. I find it interesting, that I am encountering the same argument in 2 areas of my life.

[@e.s.andrews1702]

Good point. I will do my best!

[@EruditeMagic]

It's all you can do!

[@twatmunro]

I have a pet peeve and it's those KZbin short videos that are in a completely seperate format. This was a great example of a short video that fit the regular KZbin format perfectly.

[@EruditeMagic]

🤔😄

[@magicoemerson]

Very good video, the first time I heard about this concept, was trough Jon Allen, very wise advice.

[@EruditeMagic]

He's commented already!

[@jasonsilbermanmagic]

"Just like that" is my biggest pet peeve with performers.

[@EruditeMagic]

It's easy to fall into the trap when you don't have a script!

[@jimkl0]

Lee Earle was the first proponent I saw who insisted on "participant" vocabulary. I've adopted the premise for almost all of my books. I rarely use the word "spectator" any more.

[@EruditeMagic]

Love it, Jim, and thanks for mentioning another creator who shares my peeve 😄

[@donpepe9947]

You're right!!!!!

[@erictrainor4345]

I believe Dan Harlan talks about how spectators spectate at you, but participants party with you!

[@EruditeMagic]

😄 I like that!

[@stevenmills3507]

Never used it once. I always found it to be the magic equivalent of "consumer" . Even more offensive is layman, seemingly defined as "one so stupid that the only concern is keeping the cards from getting wet from the drool", as in "it flies right past the laymen". Spoiler alert - Probably Not.

[@EruditeMagic]

🤣👍

[@VancouverMagic]

A lot of magicians overuse the word "actually" in their performances.

[@PeterPrevos]

This issue is not unique to magic. There is a lot of research on customer labelling. What you call our customers defines the relationship, the psychological contract between the service provider (the magician) and the beneficiary (participant). Universities have students, accountants have clients, airlines have passengers, etc.

[@EruditeMagic]

Bingo!

[@Dimitris.Papastamatis]

nice work :)

[@EruditeMagic]

Haha, thanks!

[@jackhigginbotham1654]

So interesting how the words we use are influenced by the people who have came before. I think participant is much better than spectator because as magicians we want the audience to actively participate in our performance, not simply spectate. Great video Jeff!

[@EruditeMagic]

Thanks, Jack! You are right about the history: consider the word "patter." I've never heard it used outside of magic, yet it is widely accepted as magical jargon

[@davidcupps991]

Agree

[@Jonathan_Sabov]

Peter Turner also uses the "participant" terminology instead of "spectator"

[@EruditeMagic]

Great to know!

[@johnhostler4763]

Agreed - ONE of the worst habitually-used words in our realm. The phrase "was that fair?" also lands in the top 5, as it frames the performance as little more than a trivial battle of wits.

[@EruditeMagic]

True! Or an unanswerable question, depending on your perspective. Thanks for chiming in, John!

[@jethro1963]

I agree "Was that fair" tells me it wasn't. Isn't that a case of don't run if nobody's chasing you.

[@MalekMagicianPR]

Annemann uses participants as well

[@EruditeMagic]

I knew there was a reason Annemann was one of my faves! 💙

[@georgeyounts9391]

As a theatre person I buy in Houdin statement as Magician as an actor. So those watching are part of your play and make them characters in it. So learn their names and use them or for some tricks give them a name and make them part of the plot :)

[@EruditeMagic]

Great advice, George!

[@jethro1963]

Weren't there magicians who later bristled at the old Houdin axiom of a magician being an actor playing the part of a magician.

[@EruditeMagic]

Oh, 💯 there are many magicians who have had a problem with that axiom

[@JayJenningsVideos]

I typically use the word Helper. Less hoity-toity than Participant and only HALF the syllables! (Plus, no relationship to “participation trophy!”)

[@jethro1963]

Mother of Mr Rogers: "Always look for the helpers" That's good advice in any scenario.

[@Grndl42]

As a busker, a spectator is not part of my show. I look for participants. They both have their place in the show.

[@EruditeMagic]

For sure. I'm not against proper use of the word 'spectator', but it shouldn't be the default term for an audience member involved with the magic.

[@RobertBallMagician]

I can recall in one of the older books l have they are called "victims." It's kind of funny but not at the same time.

[@EruditeMagic]

🤣🤣🤣

[@EruditeMagic]

Maybe "spectator" isn't so bad 😄

[@RobertBallMagician]

@@EruditeMagic 😅😅😅

[@Badzilla]

Here is my pet peeve about magic books. Ken Weber's book being one (Although I find huge value in it) The condescending tone they often use!! 'Most magician's do this, they are clueless to such and such' and they start sounding superior. I hate it. it is hard to read. they forget that they are talking to the people who purchased their books! It sounds like you're reading the magic cafe lol here is a controversial list of books I found this in: -Maximum Entertainment -Strong Magic -Devious Standards

[@EruditeMagic]

I see that - good point!

[@jethro1963]

I may get in trouble for this but I have found many magicians rather unlikable or non relatable. I remember posting about Richard Jones after he won Britain's Got Talent. Several magicians (amateurs) were criticizing his technique and such but what they sorely missed was his connection to the audience. You were rooting for the guy, he was humble, classy and downright nice something which I think is also exemplified by Jeff and is in short supply today. I guess that is the reason why I subscribe to this channel.

[@EruditeMagic]

@@jethro1963 you're right about magicians needing to be likeable. And thank you for the kind words 🙏

[@Noleggeisha]

I will preface this by saying that it is of course your channel and I respect every choice you make. In my opinion, keep “not doing this”. The one thing I really don’t care for on KZbin is ranting and people getting out of the way to tell people what they should not do.

[@tommarquette9706]

First I agree we need to stop using the term. All the same we need terms which explain how a presentation works. When you get someone to help you do a trick, a direct interaction takes place, but there are a mess of folk watch that interaction . Their participation is pretty passive, untill the reveal when they hopefully, make happy sounds. In my notes on how a trick is done, i use a short hand of: "P" Further I think some of the problem lay in the structure of American grammar. When we use the third person it creates distance, a creeping degree of objectivity. Lastly shouldn't all magic be a group effort, people help us do the magic.

[@EruditeMagic]

Great points, all! Thanks for sharing, Tom

[@garethb3775]

Doug Dyment also has an essay on this very subject

[@EruditeMagic]

Yes! In Calculated Thoughts, right? Thank you for the reminder!

[@vincentkochetta5985]

Doug Dyment would agree with you, I believe

[@EruditeMagic]

Yes, I believe you're right!

[@jameskelsey9825]

Jon Allen has a huge thing on his hatred of the word spectator.

[@EruditeMagic]

No doubt with humor as well!

[@davidcorsaro]

Go look up jon Allen’s old VHS tape

[@EruditeMagic]

I should, but then I'd have to source a VHS player and a TV with those connections - it would be a whole thing. 😄 What did he say? 🤷

[@Vanur2]

Just the title will be enough. It's called 'Spectators Don't Exist' 😁

[@EruditeMagic]

Ha, thanks, Jon!

[@ivj]

Disagree to a point. I’ve never referred to a spectator in person as such name in performance. But in magic books, as a descriptor, I’m fine with. We shouldn’t be enforcing compelled speech. Words do have meaning, but we can also give a little too much power to them & being overall sensitive to them at the same time.

[@EruditeMagic]

Trust me, I won't be enforcing anything! 😄 I'm well aware that I control only my own thoughts and actions. Glad to hear your thoughts

[@ivj]

@@EruditeMagic I didn’t mean you specifically. Just society in general. Giving words too much weight & over thinking them, when you really don’t need to in this case. What are the ramifications? I’ve never heard one person offended or irritated being called a spectator. Sometimes we as magicians can get lost in the minutia, when what really matters is “Did you entertain & did the audience enjoy you” That’s all audience care about.

[@jethro1963]

@@ivj Totally agree with this and your first post. There is something quite sinister about compelled speech and I'm not referring to the subject words of this video.

[@pauldilella2207]

Great video Jeff. Short and to the point. Loved the intro and the words we should all love to hate. How about a similar list of comments and performance lines we hear at magic meetings that make us all cringe?

[@EruditeMagic]

Thanks, Paul - good idea!

[@jethro1963]

Here's what makes me cringe, a mentalist asking a participant/spectator "What is your name?". If I'm in the audience I'm thinking shouldn't he know? Wouldn't a better way be to say something like "Tell everybody your name" or something worded a little better than that.

[@EruditeMagic]

Interesting! Depending on the ability you are projecting, you might be right

[@rogergrant8865]

Have you ever done a review of "T. Page Wright Manuscript" or has anyone done a review on this 350 pages book?

[@EruditeMagic]

Never heard of it!

[@jonahberg9280]

Do you perform close up professionally or just for fun

[@Grndl42]

Also, you assume because you're bored with those terms, the audience is also. But those words pop.

[@EruditeMagic]

Sounds like it's working for you. Not going to argue with results 😄🤷

[@jlebowitz8325]

I love this kind of take on things and applaud the post, but I'm pretty sure that the word 'spectator' replaced words such as 'victim' or specifically referring to audience members as a 'man' or 'woman.' Its use goes back to Anneman, Hugard, Rotenberg, etc. Perhaps it's time to retire the word, but it really is just a way to identify those who you are performing to when describing an effect, not a word you would use when performing a trick (e.g. 'As a spectator, would you please choose a card'). I don't think it was ever meant to be a term to judge the audience or imply a separation of the audience from the performance. (Generally, most magic books don't refer to the magician as a 'conjuror' anymore either...) I guess I'm not a fan of expunging words from the lexicon. You can imagine that at some point, 'participant' may become verboten, as--I don't know-- it might imply that the magician forced an audience member to participate and select a card... at that point, we'll then insist that we refer to voluntarily-selected-audience-member-who-was-not-coerced-into-participation... after realizing that these are too many words to describe something so simple, which someone might suggest that we use one of those older terms to refer to an audience member... how about 'spectator'?

[@Dimitris.Papastamatis]

audience is derived from the word audio ,so audiance would be the listeners . Spectator/viewer. for someone who is wathcing a painting or a movie , and for magic perhaps as u said , participant but it is a bit generic . WE NEED A SOLUTION ASAP

[@EruditeMagic]

And even there, movie makers acknowledge the choice and action by calling them moviegoers

[@ScottRSmith1964]

I totally agree with Ken. I’m not a fan of his list either. I have never used the word participant. I’m very critical of words. A participant (kidding), when performing card magic, muggles have no idea what a riffle is, except that it’s a cute word. I do not perform professionally, I just love magic and call myself a super hobbyist. This is fun, Jeff. I love your videos.

[@EruditeMagic]

Thanks, Scott!

[@tricko2211]

I dont like the phrase "Do me a favour'.

[@kalvheps5973]

Treat people with respect and entertain them.( as a good magician/ mentalist should)If they ( human beings!)are asked on stage then shake them by the hand and call them by their names and treat them as a guest,someone valued.Lets not get too dogmatic or rules orientated though.Yes sometimes words are poorly chosen to differentiate (say in a book) to let the reader know they are talking about a magician and spectators.We know what they mean though.Participants sounds better.Remember though not all people want to be included in a show but rather be a passive entertained onlooker.But yes,in general spectator seems a bit cold.

[@EruditeMagic]

To be clear, I'm talking about when we discuss the audience in books or amongst ourselves. You should always use their names in performance‼️👍

[@kalvheps5973]

@@EruditeMagic If you are a magician/mentalist and you are writing a book with the word “spectator “ in it then ok a poor choice of word but if that same magician/author/ mentalist actually treats his audience/participants/guest with the utmost of respect then fine by me.I don’t think the word “spectator “ is meant to signal that the participants are inferior or I would hope not!But participant sounds better to me.

[@magicerik]

cant agree more with u, i hate the phrase "lets see if u can figure this out", "try to figure this out" even more it drives me insane, the people that buy a self working trick, showing it without script or any presentation at all, and literally explaining every action they do " here i have a red ball and i will put it inside that ordinary crystal box blah blah blah and posting on the internet, and what is funny to me that this people are then complaining about hecklers and exposure when they literally said figure out my trick and then complaining

[@ndmagic99]

Michael Murry uses “participant” more than anyone.

[@EruditeMagic]

Love to hear that!

[@MarkElsdonMagic]

Not more than me ;-)

[@EruditeMagic]

The gauntlet has been thrown down!

[@donpepe9947]

Ironically, I'm reading Darwin Ortiz book Strong Magic and he uses the term spectator from time to time Great book wrong term

[@reverendgaddy2435]

What a "perfect" video.

[@EruditeMagic]

😄

[@341kmac]

While I certainly agree that we should make every effort to make the audience feel like they’re participating in the creation of wonder, I think this might be be a mountain out of a molehill since we don’t ask for a spectator or a participant to come up and assist. (At least I hope you’re not referring to an audience member that way!)

[@EruditeMagic]

No, I'm referring to the magic literature and teachers primarily. But, as readers and in our conversations, if we are using terms like this, I believe it affects the way we treat our audience.

[@andyk147]

Check out Jon Allens tape Spectators don’t exist

[@EruditeMagic]

He commented earlier - was it a VHS? 📼 🤔

[@andyk147]

@@EruditeMagic It was a VHS tape but he emphasises the point in his book too The Magic of Jon Allen 😎

[@EruditeMagic]

Thanks for letting us know!

[@terryterrell686]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition defines spectator as One who on; one who sees or beholds; a beholder; one who is personally present at, and sees, any exhibition. "the spectators at a show" So, in effect, spectator is an accurate description. Just because someone doesn't like it is not a valid reason for it to not be used.

[@EruditeMagic]

It's an accurate description for people sitting there watching, yes. But not the best descriptor for someone who picks a card, thinks of a word, or makes choices that are [supposedly] meaningful to the show. Yet that's how "spectator" is typically used in magic books and conversations.

[@terryterrell686]

@@EruditeMagic true, the word spectator is being used generally to describe the non-performer, but after they pick the card, they become a spectator of the performance again. Basically, it boils down to semantics.

[@EruditeMagic]

@@terryterrell686 You might be right. But, my contention is that it is not just semantics. If we constantly call our audience "spectators," I believe we are baking in the wrong mindset for what our magic should be. Just my $0.02. I really appreciate you engaging in the discussion!!

[@trickcigar]

I don't see the problem. Its just a word used in the explanation of a trick. How does it affect your understanding and learning of a routine ? So the next time I use the word spectator when explaining a trick to a friend I'm being a bad magician ? You have just further validated why I think most theory and essays are a waste of time. I do love your channel though :) .... just not moments like this.

[@sc24evr]

Ex-pectator! But I read a lot of Juan tamariz

[@EruditeMagic]

🤣

[@farqs6070]

Respectfully, completely disagree. The word spectator does not mean a 'disengaged viewer.' From dictionary, a spectator is "one of a company present at a spectacle of any kind.". And what is a spectacle? From dictionary, a spectacle is "something exhibited to view as unusual, notable, or entertaining especially an eye-catching or dramatic public display.". In my opinion, we magicians should strive to elevate our performances to the level of true spectacles. And therefore, everyone we reach through our work will be true spectators of spectacular magic!

[@theoldman2821]

I think you engaged in a logical fallacy here. First, you describe a truth. Yes, the term "the spectator" has been used, you would know better than me, for least 150 years in magic literature. It's called, as they say in other professions, "a term of art." You then make the leap that if one uses that term then they only think of their audience as a faceless mass. So, your B does not logically follow A. In addition, as the book reviewer you are you'll, again know better than me, I've got to estimate that 70% of magic books do talk about the audience, how to engage them how to entertain and other ideas for audience interaction. And then of course there's the 30% of the technical books and there is of course a place for that. I'm sorry, but I really don't see this.