Skip to main content

Experiencing the Impossible: Gustav Kuhn ***

I have to admit I find magic acts rather tedious entertainment - but I do enjoy trying to work out how the trick was done and then (ideally) finding out how it really was undertaken - so I was fascinated by the idea of a book that claims to cover 'the science of magic'. (By magic, I should stress, I don't mean the fantasy sorcery version, but the very down-to-earth engineered version used in magic shows.) This handsome book proved to be a distinct curate's egg: there were sections I pretty much skip read as they were somewhat dull, but other parts that really captured my attention.

 The reason that some sections don't work so well was the classic academic writer's problem of not realising the importance of narrative and storytelling (which you'd think a practising magician like Gustav Kuhn would realise). The book comes alive when we are told about specific tricks or people or situations, but sometimes it becomes a collection of facts, a lecture on, say, a particular psychological trait, and then it can lose the reader's attention.

 It's not that the psychology parts aren't interesting - and inevitably, apart from engineering, most of the 'science of magic' is about psychology and how the brain works (and doesn't) - but they need to be presented with much more context and more tying back to the magic that they are supposed to be illustrating. Similarly, it's not that the science is too heavy - if anything, we don't get enough of it. So, for example, Kuhn introduces a theory of Bayesian misdirection which I absolutely loved as a concept, but wasn't able to read much about.

 If you read the book to get the lowdown on how all the famous tricks work, you will be disappointed. Kuhn does explain a few very basic tricks, but mostly brandishes the magician's traditional veil of secrecy. This is a real shame and is another reason the book doesn't work as well as it could. You don't explain science by saying 'the researchers did an experiment, but I'm not going to tell you how it worked, just what it looked like' - but that's exactly what happens here. A great example is Kuhn's use of a Derren Brown illusion, where someone was given the choice of any toy in the huge toy store Hamleys, and Brown apparently predicted what the choice would be. Kuhn tells us that Brown 'explained' the trick by telling us it was due to repeated suggestions - but that this explanation doesn't hold up. We're then told 'Brown is one of my favourite magicians and I have no intention of revealing how his trick is done...' - but that's exactly what's required to make the book work. There's too much tease with no reveal.

 One other thing that I was surprised wasn't covered, perhaps because of the author's obvious love for magic, is its rapid decline as a popular adult entertainment. A couple of decades ago, magic shows were primetime TV fixtures. Now, magic tends to be much more niche. It may be that as we are so used to amazing CGI, we don't really care about illusion. Or something else. It would have been interesting to have seen a professional analysis of this.

 I don't want to give the impression that this book is devoid of interesting content. I repeatedly came on sections which really grabbed my attention, primarily those built around actual magical tricks. But it could have been so much better.

 Hardback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on
Post a Comment
Read more

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more