talkmagic.co.uk

Markdini wrote:Actually I was being sarcastic about voodoo if you prefer “burning the bit of paper like some sort of Mormon ritual”

I ve never and probably never will see the point of having something written down, ripped up then burnt. See I was on about the centre tear its self.

I agree... one of the reasons I believe the Center Tear to be the most overrated P.O.S. bit in the whole of magic and more so, Mentalism.

Hi there,

This is a really interesting topic. I've recently started to undertake wedding and restaurant work, and have a few small routines that use flash paper. Nothing too elaborate, just things like Sankey’s ‘In a Flash’, and a few card effects where I burn a small amount of FP.

I’ve been concerned about smoke alarms as that last thing I want to do is to set one off and force an angry bride and groom and 100 drunk guests outside into the rain (I live in the UK  ), nor do I want to have to disrupt an entire restaurant of people and be chased out by a hoard of kitchen staff headed by an angry Chef shouting more profanities that Gordon Ramsey!

So, am I being paranoid about using FP in these environments? A few friends from my magic club told me not to worry too much, but I did note that siege suggested it could still set off smoke alarms?

Do you guys use FP in wedding / restaurant work? Is it courteous to explain to the manager what you want to do first (or is that just giving them too much info and would cause unnecessary concern?)

Looking forward to your views,

Regards,

I always check with the event organiser if I'm thinking of doing anything with fire. We all know that flash paper when used properly is totally safe but other people may have different ideas.

If the organiser has agreed to the use of fire, if anything like fire alarms or irrate bar staff does happen you can just point them towards the organiser.

This is one of the reasons why I avoid the centre tear (or anything else involving fire). I'd use a peek. Pity, because I have my own centre-tear presentation of which I'm rather proud (you can find it in the E-magazine Center Tear, and I believe it found its way into Shadow Digest too.).

In MMM, T A Waters suggests dropping the pieces into a high-necked vase.

Barry

I have a tiny, manual shredder that cost less than a fiver from my local stationer. It's just a bit of fun and fits with the story of the effect (corporate espionage).

Ted wrote:I have a tiny, manual shredder that cost less than a fiver from my local stationer. It's just a bit of fun and fits with the story of the effect (corporate espionage).

And gives you plenty of confetti for doing the Snow Storm later in the evening, right?

Though I've not read it over I know that Bruce Bernstein has a book out on the Center Tear that offers some alternative handling when it comes to getting rid of the pieces, etc. but personally I've not seen the need UNLESS I want to create a ritualistic feel about things.

I have a new eBook that should be out relatively soon entitled FROM THE CENTER that will share some of my thoughts on this technique. That is not to say that I've changed my opinion of it, only that I challenge myself to find ways of using those methods I loathe that make sense to me. In the case of the CT it's been an on-going struggle simply for the fact that it makes absolutely no sense in over 95% of all instances; mentalism has come light years forward in the area of covert information gathering that is far more clean, less suspicious, and certainly not as psychologically conflicting as the CT tends to be when it comes to the logic (ill-logic) of it all.
... getting back to my book... by challenging myself to work with a technique I downright loathe, I've come up with some surprisingly sound routines, one of which is echoed in a second book that will be coming out around the same time ("Where on Earth?") I think that when we are confronted with challenges, no matter what they may be, we owe it to ourselves to step back and look at them from several different angles, testing the course of things until we start creating solutions that fit our goals. I don't say this very often, but it may very well be time for us all to start breaking ourselves from the habit of using the CT simply because it's "convenient" and easy to exploit

I do understand why some people don't see sense in the centre tear. But then how many effects are completely clean? Indulge me, please, in my discourse in support of the centre tear...

If I want someone to select a card freely why would I ask them to cut to a card, or push a finger into the deck as I riffle it? They should be able to pick up the deck, look through it and pull a card out. But I don't usually ask them to do this. I'll ribbon spread at best (face up or down), and that seems incredibly fair to most people. As it happens, I really don't like the riffling force methods.

The performer is always 'in charge', sometimes making up the rules as s/he goes. This is what makes PATEO etc possible. And very few people seem to question the strange acts that they are asked to perform (jinx to Bingo).

For example, there have been many times when I've been performing (funnily enough, usually in small and informal situations - which seems counter-intuitive) where the participant has been concerned that they are doing things properly - that they want to follow the 'rules'. They assume the existence of rules and they want me to tell them these rules so they can comply. My guess is that few people have first hand experience of being part of a 'magic trick' and want to get it right (*anecdote follows). Writing this I almost can believe in hypnotism. But...

Getting back to the CT specifically... you've had someone commit an idea (word, usually) to paper. This is a significant act. You then destroy it, which is also significant. The whole thing is a drama and hopefully the audience buys into it. "He destroyed the paper - now it's *really* going to be tough to know what Fred was thinking!"

Reasons for the CT (i.e. why write and destroy)?

- My personal one - spies. My usual material is about espionage, so destroying a message is entirely appropriate. It's a fun part of the story.

- Voodoo (as someone said earlier) - burning stuff is ritualistic. That will fit with a lot of bizarre stuff, which is hardly the most rational area of entertainment ever created.

- Other stories. If you have a theme you can probably work destruction into it. Eugene Burger's treatment of the Hindu/Gipsy thread fits this idea. Tell a good story and you've gone beyond a point where someone will say, "OK, but why did he shred the paper?"

Just my late evening thoughts in support of the mundane CT.

* Here's the anecdote.

I'd bought some fair-looking ESP cards (Beyond ESP 2) and was mucking around with them in a London bar one evening. I'd got cocky and had five people lined up (jinx to Bingo), each with a card. I got the first right but, due to the terrible lighting and my inexperience with these cards, I failed at least two times (maybe three).

My final attempt succeeded. The old bloke, whose card I has revealed correctly, exclaimed loudly. To my surprise he said, "YES! I got it right!" Read that again - HE got it right! I had asked them to transmit the image to me and he'd seen my previous failings not as my problem but as the failing of the other participants. He believed he'd succeeded. Mad I know, but an interesting experience for me. Someone really bought it...

I have used, for several years, a mini hand cranked shredder
(as suggested earlier) for destoying a bill in an envelope, instead of burning it.

Great with a Just Chance routine when a borrowed bill is placed in one of several envelopes ; all are shredded except one. Guess which one!
And for the TM Joker-- no it is not the one with a blank piece of paper in it that's left!

I have never burnt billets but the shredder came into the fold when my wife & I did Ken de Courcy's, Q & A Act, 'The Receptive Shroud' to save burning the written down questions.

Allen Tipton

I thought getting someone to write what they were thinking made complete sense, isn't it so they can show it to the audience without having to say it aloud so the performer cannot hear, and then destroyed so the performer has no way of knowing what was written on it.

By showing to audience the spectator helping is absolved of collusion and by burning it, the performer is prevented [sic] from knowing what was written.

Are the contents of the paper normally kept concealed from everyone except the person par-taking then?