talkmagic.co.uk

daniel madison i got an collection of books from him i will look into this thanks

IAIN wrote:

daleshrimpton wrote::roll: i didn't mean do all of it..

what i said , or ment to say was make it look like equivoke.

make them think that you are using equivoke...

let them try to deconstruct it....

but , because the equivoke you used, is in truth utter b'locks, they wont be able to work it out.. but they spend so much time trying, they forget the bleedin obvious method you do use.. ie, a switch.

i disagree - MAKE them think you are using equivoque?! we are talking about punters arent we? so...where and when do they naturally drift towards "ah yes, here's the equivoque bit..."

my only tip to you using equivoque - is to ask everyone else to play along, and if they feel manipulated, to make their own private choices in their heads...

cos then a) they'll arrive at different cards, and thus prove its not 'in play', and b) at to the realism of it all...

once again.. read what i said...
I said

make it look like equivoke

Humph.... Iain..

( there isnt a smiley for that .. and no, it's not pronounced hump)

At no time did i say make them think.

leading people up the garden path in regards to methods of effect is standard stuff, and i have to say thanks to many thousands of bad magicians out there, Magicians choice isn't the big secret you imagine it to be.

yeah, i read what you said! and you said "make it look like equivoque"!

and i didnt agree with you - thats all!

its ok to disagree with people isnt it?!

I think Dale is talking about putting in something that will lead audience members who know of equivoque to think that is being used, only later in the effect to do something that makes no sense by that solution. You bamboozle those people in particular, and everyone else at large. On The Mark sort of does that.

Personally I'd rather convince them that I'm using some genuine but esoteric skill.

Mr_Grue wrote:I think Dale is talking about putting in something that will lead audience members who know of equivoque to think that is being used, only later in the effect to do something that makes no sense by that solution. You bamboozle those people in particular, and everyone else at large. On The Mark sort of does that.
.

yes.

Look on it as a magician fooler, for lay people.

yeah, i understand that - and again, all i was saying was that i didnt agree...wasnt saying it was wrong, just saying that i didnt agree..

IAIN wrote:yeah, i understand that - and again, all i was saying was that i didnt agree...wasnt saying it was wrong, just saying that i didnt agree..

If only more people could just leave conversations at this point rather than having to escalate into an arguement.

there's an effect like this in paul harris' art of astonishment vol. 3 called "the hedonists make up all the rules" or something similar. it's basically a glorified magician's f**ce that is done a number of different ways to get the audient to 'pick' the previously removed card.
although, in theory, not very different to the method you described, the handling isn't bad and alot of thought has gone into it.

Paul Harris' work is a great bit of thinking, but I think it comes off a little too convoluted at times.

For that line of thinking, Greg Arce's Scorched is an amazing effect. I keep a burned up card in an envelope on me at all times since I first read it.

Even Docc Hilford's E'voque (or any variation of equivoque, for that matter) can work very well for playing cards, provided you are careful with scripting and presentation.

And if you are interested in Equivoque then you must read--he Mind & Magic Of David Berglas, Chapter 4, pages 79 to 85--Magician's Choice

Allen Tipton

Allen Tipton wrote:And if you are interested in Equivoque then you must read--he Mind & Magic Of David Berglas, Chapter 4, pages 79 to 85--Magician's Choice

Allen Tipton

In all honesty I would reccomend E'voque by Docc Hilford, for equivoque or Philip Goldstein's 'Verbal control'. Berglas is just perhaps a little bit extremley expensive and maybe somewhat slightly extremley problematic to get hold of Obviously Berglas' was an important evolution in Equivoque, but Hilford's is an evolution of that evolution. Of course, your own evolution, tends to be best though.

Fortunatley, Equivoque is very easy to adapt to non-materials, such as 'imagined' playing cards, with a little imagination.

A final note, is to have a flick through Corinda and there is an effect called 'nicley suited' towards the end of the Predictions chapter, which works Brilliantly with equivoque and psychological forces. The idea of half forcing and half multiple-outs is one which I think would be very sensible to persue as it looks extremley fair.