@Sal – Nice callback!

@Sal – I mostly agree with that. I think where we vary is the definition of “some structure.” In my opinion (and that’s all it is – opinion), a few key lines is structure enough.

In case I’m interpreting Greg’s words wrong, I’ll quote them here (from the PHootnotes in ReCapped): “It’s easy to lean too hard on a tight script and come off as a robot or a pitchman. In all of Gregory’s routines, he likens his presentations to a tree: With his tightly scripted material as the ‘trunk’, he can feel more free to ‘branch off’ and ‘go out on a limb’ as the spontaneity of the moment dictates. But if things are getting too risky on the precariously-perched twigs of improvisation, he can always run back to the safety and security of that word-for-word ‘trunk’. A close-up performance should be an invitation rather than a shield… but at the same time you need some structure to keep things focused. No easy answers. It’s all part of the art.”

Those are Paul Harris’ words, I can’t beat that.

@Sal – I’ve said this before, and it fits perfectly here: If two people agree on everything, then one of them is unnecessary. First, thank you for sharing your opinion. I’m glad you weren’t afraid to disagree with. After reading as many of my reviews as you have, you probably know that I’m certainly not afraid to state my opinion either. All of this is just that. This entire magazine is pretty much one man’s (with the help of a few of my magi friends) opinion/experience. I will say, however, that even if you disagree with me, I would challenge you to try the branch I suggest in this article. Just pick one trick and try it. See how it goes. There’s a certain freedom in not-scripting.

I remember a time back in high school when I was about to call a girl that I was interested in. Before I called, I practiced asking her questions, and I wrote down a bunch of notes, etc. By the time I made the phone call, it felt more like an interview than a conversation. Over time (in spite of this incident) we became good friends. Some of our best times were times when we just hung out and were “ourselves.” No script, no thought to what would happen next . . . just spontaneity. Anyone who knows me, knows that allowing myself to be spontaneous is waaaaaaaaaay out of my comfort zone. I’m Mr. organized, and I like things to go as planned. However, I’ve experimented with this style of performing with just a few lines and relying strictly on my interaction with the audience to get me through it. I’ve gotta say man it is invigorating! Keep in mind I’m only talking about close up performance where you really are pretty much one-on-one with the audience. Stage and bigger shows are a whole different thing in my opinion.

One last thought: Gregory Wilson talks about having a script to fall back on in case something “goes wrong.” Goes wrong? Like what? You drop the card when you palm it, or maybe you find the wrong card, or you flash when you do a retention vanish? How does a script save you in those situations? I really would like to know. I don’t see a script saving anything in that case. In fact, I like the approach that I’ve seen Tom Mullica take. I saw him screw up a trick in his An Evening at The Tom Foolery DVD. He basically laughed it off and said something like, “oh great I screwed it up, now I have to start over . . . ” I’m just not convinced that Wilson is right about this. But I love discussions like this because we both learn from them. After all, if two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary (I told you I like that saying).

Now, I don’t believe anyone should be a ‘robot’ when they perform, as you put it. However, I always like to perform knowing full well what I should say, and if the opportunity to fiddle around with the script comes up, I will take it, but I prefer to have a full script behind me, just in case.

I’m not going to take credit for that ideology, just sharing it here. This is from Art of Astonishment volume 1, at the end of ReCapped, there is a quote from Gregory Wilson, who says that a script should be like a tree (a good metaphor for this article 😀 ). He says you should be able to branch out from your script to adapt to the situation, but if things go wrong, there should always be a strong ‘root’ to fall back on.

This probably sounds like a very disorganized reply, but it’s the best I could do, given that I’m too lazy to take the time to proofread it 😀