talkmagic.co.uk

Mark Smith wrote:P.S. I look forward to reading your 10,000 words on the subject!

You play with fire, Mr Smith.

If you do take a look at Thirteen, note the Clock Miracle. (Actually, a thing found in anything - Baby's First Card Tricks would probably contain it.) Clock. Numbers. Giveaway. (Also, 'What's your favourite hour of the day?' Eh? Your what? Flimsy, transparent nonsense.) I drop one phase, and do it with a Tarot deck and, instead of a 'clock face', a circle of zodiac signs - using the idea, 'Tarot readings have two parts: revealing information about the sitter and information about the future...' Even in my feeble hands, that way it disguises as it makes sense as it tingles.

I go to bed now. My mind actually off-topically full of why I can't make the rub-a-dub vanish appear remotely convincing.

Sexton Blake wrote:why I can't make the rub-a-dub vanish appear remotely convincing.

You seen Devil's Picturebook - Derren has a beautiful piece of misdirection and timing which makes this a whole lot more convincing!

Apologies for lurking on what seems to be an almost private conversation, but your dialogue has been of great interest.

Sexton Blake wrote:Use Tarot cards.

If not tarot then there are plenty of alternatives, such as an ESP deck. You could even go for Top Trumps (showing my age) although I appreciate does not have the same atmosphere.

Sexton Blake wrote:3) Maths-based tricks. Always the most clunky (and often unsalvageably so).

Now I did use to think like this, but there are some real gems out there. Elmsley did some superb work in this area. Interestingly enough he applied a strong mentalism angle, using the afore mentioned symbolic decks.

pdjamez wrote:Now I did use to think like this, but there are some real gems out there. Elmsley did some superb work in this area. Interestingly enough he applied a strong mentalism angle, using the afore mentioned symbolic decks.

I agree. Once you get past simple counting tricks there are some real bafflers, like the Allerchrist Card Trick from Scarne on Card Tricks (page 114). If you just take the underlying mechanism and explain you've lost the card, but that through coincidence alone, the deck is going to tell you where to lead you to it, it goes down a treat. I've done some work on this one to use it to find specific tarot cards usng differnt counts too, though I've not used it yet.

pdjamez wrote:Apologies for lurking on what seems to be an almost private conversation, but your dialogue has been of great interest.

Not at all, the more feedback the better! I'm glad its struck a chord with a few people.
The idea of Top Trumps (my favourite game as a child! ) is an interesting one. People aren't going to have any idea of whats going on if you start using them, you could really catch them off guard. Seeing as my view on performance is to do something that leaves a spectator slightly baffled, this might be an interesting angle to look at.

As regards ESP or Tarot Cards I would never take a 'psychic' angle, because people today are so cynical. Even if the trick works out perfectly, the claim that you're using psychic techniqiues will be dismissed and instantly 'trickery' will be in the back of their minds. So I'd need to give them another option as to how it is done.

I actually prefer not to spell it out to my victims. I merely like to suggest it, drop in a couple of subtle hints towards a method (that I'm not actually using), hoping they will be intellegent enough to make the leap. Telling them that I am using psychology, body language etc etc - while they may believe it - somewhat ruins it and may even invite some cynicism. In fact, it might have the completely opposite result to what I'm after. They may begin to dismiss anything that happens because 'he's good with pyschology', which is essentially just as bad as 'he's good at sleight of hand'. Anything that can be used to dismiss the expereince is bad.

pdjamez wrote:Now I did use to think like this, but there are some real gems out there.

Yes I agree, the joy of self working tricks is that you can have so much fun with the presentation. If you take it completely seriously and give it space in a routine, no one is going to be suspicious of it. And chances are there will be no moments where sleight of hand could have taken place - and this is the gap where you inject your own personal angle, whether it be pyschology, psychic skill or whatever.

Slipping the occassional self-worker into a routine of 'mentalism' (or whatever you want to call it!) is good fun - even if its just for your own satisfaction! Just for a couple of minutes you can smile inside knowing that they are being totally blown away by something so simple! Naughty I know.

Another long post, so I apologise! Thanks again for your input and I look forward to what else you have to say!

Mark

Mark Smith wrote:

Sexton Blake wrote:why I can't make the rub-a-dub vanish appear remotely convincing.

You seen Devil's Picturebook - Derren has a beautiful piece of misdirection and timing which makes this a whole lot more convincing!

Really? Excellent. I bought the DP DVDs a short time ago, but haven't got round to watching them yet. (I'm currently enjoying another Ken Krenzel: brilliant, of course, but spectacularly, compellingly uncomfortable in front of a camera. You know when you see a small child walking unsteadily on top of a high wall, and you can't stop yourself following it along, arms anxiously out-stretched? That's how I feel watching Ken Krenzel on film.)

Sexton Blake wrote:Really? Excellent. I bought the DP DVDs a short time ago, but haven't got round to watching them yet.

You haven't watched them yet!? You must, it will completely blow you away! They are probably the best DVDs on card magic I have seen, just his approach to misdirection and timing in card magic is worth the price of them. Go and put it on now!

pdjamez wrote:

Sexton Blake wrote:Use Tarot cards.

If not tarot then there are plenty of alternatives, such as an ESP deck. You could even go for Top Trumps (showing my age) although I appreciate does not have the same atmosphere.

Get a set Top Trumps from Germany. Over there they're called Top Ass. The rest writes itself.

Yes, ESP cards can be good too. And if the ones you're using happen to be the Beyond ESP2 deck/s
http://www.talkmagic.co.uk/ftopic6406.p ... murray+esp
then, well...

pdjamez wrote:

Sexton Blake wrote:3) Maths-based tricks. Always the most clunky (and often unsalvageably so).

Now I did use to think like this, but there are some real gems out there.

Apologies for my lack of refinement there, P. They are the most clunky, and they are often unsalvageably so, but, you're shiningly correct, there are gems there too. I can't be doing with the 'Now, move six cards on to this pile, then five cards from it to that one, then two off each, then...' things. Not only are they supremely tedious for all concerned, but they're absolutely not baffling (at least, not in a good way). However, one of my favourite tricks is maths-based. I came across it somewhere, and almost didn't stop - the climax was a dismally obvious mathematical thing. But then I thought, 'Wait a sec... If I did... and then maybe...' and the result was something that (in my own sad head) I call 'Test Conditions' because it appears to be an inexplicable prediction, done entirely openly, under 'test conditions'.

The Allerchrist Card Trick seems rather drawn out and Maths Loud to me, Tomo (though I've never actually performed it). Doubtless, however, your slant triumphs over this. I think part of it is assigning reasons. 'Count four cards from each pile.' Why? What's the basis for that except, 'Because that's what the formula demands'? If I understand correctly, Tomo, you play up the chance of it all - which is clever move (dressing absolute certainty as coincidence).

Mark Smith wrote:You haven't watched them yet!? You must

Quite honestly, I'm holding back. Partly to save what I'm sure will be a real treat, but also partly out of sweaty fear. From what I've seen, a common reaction to watching the DP is to drop to one's knees, weeping. The experiences seems to be akin to being through down a mountain side and, at the bottom, finding religion. I need to prepare myself, emotionally.

Sexton Blake wrote:The Allerchrist Card Trick seems rather drawn out and Maths Loud to me, Tomo (though I've never actually performed it). Doubtless, however, your slant triumphs over this. I think part of it is assigning reasons. 'Count four cards from each pile.' Why? What's the basis for that except, 'Because that's what the formula demands'? If I understand correctly, Tomo, you play up the chance of it all - which is clever move (dressing absolute certainty as coincidence).

Yup. Chance and more chance. I like to mess about with the parameters of self-working stuff t osee what they do and which can be safely left to chance. If you stack a few object cards at the appropriate point in the deck and reiterate to pull one each time, the spec can deal the piles himself and even shuffle most of the deck. He knows he shuffled the damned thng and can see that the coincidence is different each time, but it still happens - and it's a borrowed deck. Total brain f*rt time!

This conversation has started to move into a different area, but one I think is just as interesting. I've just seen a Review by Kati on a DVD of virtually self-working tricks, but it was mentioned that they are interesting for their presentation. I think there is some interesting concepts here, not necessarily with self-working, but in the thought behind a presentation. The best example I can think of is Derren Brown's Dead/Alive photograph trick, which is of course an awesome presentation of a classic trick. (It was even nominated for TV moment of the year - I doubt a traditional card trick would get that).
So maybe its time to think beyond cards? Maybe based in the realm of card thought and techniques, but maybe they are just too limiting? Hmmm.

Mark Smith wrote:So maybe its time to think beyond cards? Maybe based in the realm of card thought and techniques, but maybe they are just too limiting? Hmmm.

I think it's the effect you create that matters, not the cause, so perhaps specifically magical presentation skills should come under the banner "sleight-of-thought". After all, it wasn't the working behind Brown's Dead/Alive piece that received a nomination but the perception he created in the minds of the spectators.

Tomo wrote:I think it's the effect you create that matters, not the cause, so perhaps specifically magical presentation skills should come under the banner "sleight-of-thought". After all, it wasn't the working behind Brown's Dead/Alive piece that received a nomination but the perception he created in the minds of the spectators.

You're absolutely right. The point I was making was that if Derren had done a traditional Out of this World card trick he wouldn't have got an award. He must have sat and thought for a while of how he could use the card techniques, without the preconception a deck has, which creates something much more affecting.
Of course it is not always possible, and in fact may totally contradict any performance persona you may have (it would look a little ridiciulous bringing out a pack of photos in the middle of a card routine). Perhaps it is an area of performance that should be avoided until you are able to completely get rid of props and still performing unnerving magic! (Which would be amazing!!)
'Sleight-of-thought' is a lovely little phrase! I think I may adopt that. Its a matter of thinking of how to manipulate the persons mind and what means you need to achieve it: which I would argue is by any means necessary!

I agree on a certain level but ironically I think the two tricks you mentioned are the two where the fact that some people know about sleight of hand find even better. the biddle trick for example, I "show 5 cards" and then one turns up in the deck. people think of sleight of hand as moving cards around "fast hands" if anything I think tricks like ACR and the biddle trick are ideal card effects to help in situations where people "know about sleight of hand".

PS I agree with Tomo.

Pitto wrote:I agree on a certain level but ironically I think the two tricks you mentioned are the two where the fact that some people know about sleight of hand find even better. the biddle trick for example, I "show 5 cards" and then one turns up in the deck. people think of sleight of hand as moving cards around "fast hands" if anything I think tricks like ACR and the biddle trick are ideal card effects to help in situations where people "know about sleight of hand".

PS I agree with Tomo.

Fair enough. But it was actually the Biddle Trick that made me rethink my magic. I performed it and my mate spread out the deck in his hand to find the card the wrong way up. Rather than being blown away by it, he looked at the card and just turned to me and said, 'well when did you do that?'. There was no mystery - there was no magic. It was nothing more than little mathmatical puzzle for him, and thats not what I wanted to achieve.
So I've eliminated 90% of my tricks, and opted for more pyschological effects, ones that no matter how much they look back there is nothing they can say to explain it. Its no longer a 'puzzle', its something much deeper and more resonant, and maybe a little bit more magical. You're more a magician than a card technician.