DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
I am not aware of Alexis Didier having ever been caught cheating. But it doesn’t seem he was really thoroughly examined. French academics had given up studying such things. And this was before Houdini popularized debunking fakers. Houdin said he was impressed. I don’t know enough about Houdin to weigh his opinion. Was he easily fooled, as Houdini claimed? Is it possible he had a deal to endorse Didier to tour with him or act as his manager or otherwise get some cut, but it never proceeded any further? I don’t know.
Frank Podmore's Modern Spiritualism: A History and a Criticism (1902) addresses some possible ways in which Didier accomplished his tricks.
One thing that seems to point rather sharply to a standard magician’s trick is the trick where he would be blindfolded and read words on a piece of paper. By several accounts he held the paper to his forehead or stomach or both. This seems to clearly indicate that he could see around the edges of the blindfold.
The biggest problem with written accounts of magic tricks is that they are told from the perspective of the person being fooled. The account of the trick often leaves out crucial details. I have tracked down some old accounts of magic tricks and been thoroughly stumped, until I find an account that includes a small detail that the other accounts neglected to mention and which makes it rather obvious how the trick could have been done.
An example is Didier’s book test. Some accounts say they chose a random book and asked him to read the first line on a specified page. Other accounts say Didier opened the book to a page and then marked a place on the page with his finger or a pin and then gave the phrase that appeared several pages after. This can seem almost impossible. But then we find more details. Some accounts say that prior to this trick, Didier had done a trick involving covering over the book. This would have given him an opportunity during this trick to glance at a phrase to prepare for the book test. Also, some account say after opening the book, he thumbs through and selects a certain number of pages on which the phrase will then appear. Again, selecting the group of pages gave him an opportunity to glance at a phrase. Sometimes he was off by a word. Sometimes he didn’t have the exact page. Sometimes he didn’t even specify which page the phrase was on, just that it was in the group he selected. If we put together all of the accounts to get an accurate picture of what the trick involved, it becomes much easier to determine how the trick could have been done. Of course, there are a number of methods for the book test.
We find the same problem with the account of his psychic traveling. We don’t know whether the descriptions offered in places like the Zoist are accurate or what information has been omitted. I have seen plenty of accounts of psychics where the subjects claim that the information provided was completely accurate and that the physic told them things without ever asking them anything, but the records of the reading show that the physic were actually wrong or that the psychic asked plenty of questions (even asking for information and then later giving back that same information as if it were psychically divined). That’s not to even mention vague information that the subject then interprets as something specific.
Without detailed and reliable accounts, the psychic readings could have been any combination of hot reading, cold reading, accomplices, vague responses, leading questions, leading responses, counting the hits and forgetting the misses, misremembering, misstating, or even complete fabrications by people who wanted to convince people of the power of mesmerism or because they were paid or even made up.
One thing that hints toward fabrication is a repeated formula where Didier provides a vision and the subject says that the vision is not true. But then it turns out something unusual had happened and someone or something was not where the subject thought they were and Didier’s vision was correct! The recurrence of this formula suggests fictional writing rather than an accurate recording of the events.
Frank Podmore's Modern Spiritualism: A History and a Criticism (1902) addresses some possible ways in which Didier accomplished his tricks.
One thing that seems to point rather sharply to a standard magician’s trick is the trick where he would be blindfolded and read words on a piece of paper. By several accounts he held the paper to his forehead or stomach or both. This seems to clearly indicate that he could see around the edges of the blindfold.
The biggest problem with written accounts of magic tricks is that they are told from the perspective of the person being fooled. The account of the trick often leaves out crucial details. I have tracked down some old accounts of magic tricks and been thoroughly stumped, until I find an account that includes a small detail that the other accounts neglected to mention and which makes it rather obvious how the trick could have been done.
An example is Didier’s book test. Some accounts say they chose a random book and asked him to read the first line on a specified page. Other accounts say Didier opened the book to a page and then marked a place on the page with his finger or a pin and then gave the phrase that appeared several pages after. This can seem almost impossible. But then we find more details. Some accounts say that prior to this trick, Didier had done a trick involving covering over the book. This would have given him an opportunity during this trick to glance at a phrase to prepare for the book test. Also, some account say after opening the book, he thumbs through and selects a certain number of pages on which the phrase will then appear. Again, selecting the group of pages gave him an opportunity to glance at a phrase. Sometimes he was off by a word. Sometimes he didn’t have the exact page. Sometimes he didn’t even specify which page the phrase was on, just that it was in the group he selected. If we put together all of the accounts to get an accurate picture of what the trick involved, it becomes much easier to determine how the trick could have been done. Of course, there are a number of methods for the book test.
We find the same problem with the account of his psychic traveling. We don’t know whether the descriptions offered in places like the Zoist are accurate or what information has been omitted. I have seen plenty of accounts of psychics where the subjects claim that the information provided was completely accurate and that the physic told them things without ever asking them anything, but the records of the reading show that the physic were actually wrong or that the psychic asked plenty of questions (even asking for information and then later giving back that same information as if it were psychically divined). That’s not to even mention vague information that the subject then interprets as something specific.
Without detailed and reliable accounts, the psychic readings could have been any combination of hot reading, cold reading, accomplices, vague responses, leading questions, leading responses, counting the hits and forgetting the misses, misremembering, misstating, or even complete fabrications by people who wanted to convince people of the power of mesmerism or because they were paid or even made up.
One thing that hints toward fabrication is a repeated formula where Didier provides a vision and the subject says that the vision is not true. But then it turns out something unusual had happened and someone or something was not where the subject thought they were and Didier’s vision was correct! The recurrence of this formula suggests fictional writing rather than an accurate recording of the events.
Last edited:
