talkmagic.co.uk

Actually thats a little bit of a lie, but I will explain.

As a child I loved magic generally but hated card magic. I can only say that even at that age it seemed to leave me cold. In the past year however I have devleoped a real love for card magic again. Ironically it is now the other forms of magic that I dislike....sponge balls and rope!?

Then after grappling with sleights I started once again to find card magic leaving me cold and couldn't work out what it was. Then I read Derren Brown's 'Pure Effect' and 'Absolute Magic' and finally I worked it out! If you perform a trick most people in this day and age know it is exactly that - a trick. If you perform an Ambitious Card Routine, and you think that the audience actually believe the card is jumping around the deck you are probably deluding yourself (unless I perform it really badly!).

Even if they don't know how it is done they can always catagorise it under the rather non-descript title of 'Sleight of Hand'. And that really upsets me! I remember about 6 months performing the 'Biddle Trick' and while I performed it fine, the card appeared rather cheekily face down in the deck like it should, and my friend who was my victim looked at me and said, 'When did you do that?!'.
It was 'sleight of hand' and he knew it. Even though he didn't know how he had already dismissed the experience. And so I completely altered my attitude to card magic. I am now limiting myself to performing effects that do not involve 'Sleight of Hand'. Or so it may seem.

I currently perform a version of Derren's 'Plerephoria' - where the deck is shuffled by an audience member and with my back turned I can reel off the order of the cards. I also perform an effect where I write a card down unseen by the spectator, start to deal cards face down and tell them to stop me at any time - of course stopping on the card I wrote down. It is then reversed, I write down the name of a card and they deal cards face up onto the table and then place one card face down on the table when they like, and it is the card I predicted.

While there is some sleight of hand, they are effects that dont seem to involve it, and I find this far more affecting on the audience because they cant instantly dismiss it as trickery like they could an ACR.
Anyway, my point (if you got this far!) is I just wanted to know if anyone else had a similar approach to performing card material? I'd love to talk to someone with a similar performance ethic, just to bounce ideas off if nothing else.

So, thank for reading this ridiculously long essay, if you want to reply that would be great, if not never mind - I enjoying spouting my nonsense!
Many thanks, Mark

I agree that the non sleight stuff often has a bigger effect. Possibly this is - as have been said elsewhere - that one concentrates more on the presentation, rather than it solely being that the audience can't dismiss it as fingery jiggery pokery. It may also be that the effects lend themselves more to the 'mental' side of things, and those tend to hit harder. One thing I do that always gets a strong reaction is Andrew Murray's 'Twins' (he cites Fulves as the place where he saw the method).

In case you haven't come across it, the spec shuffles the deck and hands it to you. You glance through the cards (I make point of the fact that I don't disturb them - they stay 'as shuffled' by the spec) and pull out two. These are handed, face up, to the spec - or specs: it fits nicely with two people. You then deal the cards one at a time face down on to the table, stopping whenever the spec/s decides. His face-up card is placed at that point. You do this for both cards. When that's been done, you go through the pack and show that they've both stopped you next to their card's twin (so, if they had the six of diamonds, they stopped you at the six of hearts).

One could present this simply as a 'trick'. Murray uses the line that it's revealing the innate psychic abilities of the person/people doing it. I think the 'trick' way is flat, and the 'psychic' slant is obviously just dressing. When I do it, I use it as a demonstration of suggestion - the idea is that, somehow, through subtle psychological means, I'm making them stop at precisely the points they do. I think that, unless a trick is utterly baffling - a real 'How on earth did you do that?' thing (which very few are: generally people know what you've done, just not precisely when or precisely how) - then you're better off giving them a false solution that's impressive rather than leaving them to settle on one closer to the dull truth.

Yes, I wholehearthedly agree. Sometimes it is in fact suggesting a whole different technique to what is being used that can make all the difference. Obviously that is the whole point of magic, but you can - in cases like this - suggest that subtle mind tricks are at work (nothing too major that they start to question it) when in fact it really is just simple sleight of hand.

It is just annoying that even the best card tricks with the most impressive card work can be dismissed instantly by the 'laity' just because they think they know about 'sleight of hand'. I just prefer to leave them slightly unsettled and questioning, with no instant dismissals.

P.S. Where did you acquire 'Twins' from?

I know exactly what you mean, although it does not really trouble me that lay people know it's all about sleight of hand. If they don't know how it's exactly done and enjoy the trick, I am satisfied. However, I do agree that some card effects stand out in a way that you described. Among the best are those making use of a memorized deck. I have a few effects in my repertoire that always get this kind of reaction: "How on earth is it possible? Well, I know that your other tricks are based on manipulation of one sort or another, but this one is unbelievable, I cannot even begin to understand how it's done." I like to throw in this kind of tricks once in a while. It gives a nice twist to the act.

el topo wrote: "How on earth is it possible? Well, I know that your other tricks are based on manipulation of one sort or another, but this one is unbelievable, I cannot even begin to understand how it's done."

Yes, thats exactly the response I'm after with my card material. I've found now that people I perform for always expect that from me, and if I try performing anything else it never seems to impress as much. However, what I do have in mind is continuing to perform these 'mental' effects and then throw in a few normal tricks (maybe even self-working) and hopefully people will just assume they work along the same lines!

That would be ideal!

You may want to look into memorized deck. There are plenty of tricks (selfworking or based on sleights) that have this "impossibility" twist.

There's also 4, 5, 6 packet trick from Sal Piacente's Expert Card Magic Lecture Notes. With a good presentation, it's a killer.

I personally wouldn't like all my tricks to be like that. I think the contrast with other tricks that are seen as based on sleight of hand makes them even stronger.

Mark Smith wrote:P.S. Where did you acquire 'Twins' from?

As Murray cites Fulves, I'd guess that it's probably in Fulves Self-Working Card Tricks (or similar), but I can't say for sure as I haven't got the book. I saw it on Murray's 'Thirteen' DVD. Hold on... yes: it's been reviewed on the board:
http://www.talkmagic.co.uk/ftopic5888.p ... t=thirteen
Actually, though, Murray's performances seemed (a bit - I don't want to be too harsh) hesitant/awkward to me: perhaps it's because there were (almost) no sleights and he felt exposed. Mind you, it also doesn't help that many of the tricks are performed to two women who appear to have very little English and absolutely no idea what's going on.

It's an interesting DVD, actually, with ref. to this thread. Chicago Opener is on there too: this is a great trick (Frank Garcia's, I think). However, it's hit and miss in the environment where I do tricks - for friends or acquaintances at parties, etc. Twins I do to the table (not to hands as Murray does on the DVD - simply, I'm sure, because there isn't a table). I've never had the slightest trouble with it, and even my girlfriend - who's seen it multiple times and is, let me tell you, the worst, most savage person for me to do tricks in front of - hasn't sussed it yet. CO, on the other hand, requires an audience of people who aren't good friends, because you need the distance. If I do CO in front of good friends, they grab at the odd-backed card - "Here - let me see that.' - when I try to put it aside; I can put it right aside (half-sticking out of my pocket, say), but that ruins everything as they think I've 'obviously' switched it there and, in any case, replying, "No - get off," when they ask to look at the card does the legs of the final revelation.

I could also say something about the Clock Miracle (which is on the DVD as well) that I think is generally applicable, but I don't want to go on too much.

Final point, though: with sleights, you can easily fall into the trap of loving the method instead of the effect. You're so pleased with yourself that you've done all this stuff and the spec has seen nothing, that you overlook the fact that the spec has seen 'nothing produce something not very interesting'. It's so hard to keep your eye completely on the effect ball, though. For example, last week, I was wandering around at a party and I passed by my eldest son, who was sitting down idly playing pontoon with a friend of his (can't remember the person's name; let's call him John). My son, gathering up the cards, says, 'Hey - do a trick for John.' I take the pack and shuffle it, then ask John to look at a card without showing it to me. This card goes back into the pack, and I shuffle again. I then place the pack on the table in front of John and say, 'Cut the pack - anywhere you like.' He does this. I slowly and openly remove the card he's cut to (genuinely - no cross cut force or suchlike), place it aside, face down on the table, and take up the rest of the pack. 'Turn over the card,' I say. He does.
'How did you do that?' he gasps, staring at the 10 of Diamonds.
'That's your card?'
'Yes! How did you do that?'
He's stunned, because he thinks what he's just seen is impossible.
Well, he should be stunned, because it is impossible.
What I've done is forced a card, then controlled it to the bottom. I'll have him cut to an indifferent card and, while he's saying, 'No, that's wrong,' transfer the card to the top of the pack, face-up. Then I'll place his (face down) card - 'Are you sure this isn't yours?' - over it and (usually while muttering, 'Sorry, I was trying to do it with skill, and I'm just not good enough: I'll have to do it with magic.') Erdnase change it. But, coincidentally, I've forced the 10 of Hearts, and he's cut to the 10 of Diamonds and suffered partial memory loss. What should have been going though my head was reeling joy at being handed a miracle by pure luck. But what was going through it was irritation that his poor memory had short-circuited my trick. I had to fight very hard against the urge to say to him, 'No, no, no. That wasn't your card. You had the 10 of Hearts, you fool. Now give that 10 of Diamonds here and let me finish.'

I am weak.

That was a really interesting post Sexton. The issue of method and effect is all important, if the impact upon the audience is the same then use the simplest method.

"You're so pleased with yourself that you've done all this stuff and the spec has seen nothing, that you overlook the fact that the spec has seen 'nothing produce something not very interesting' "

You always have to consider the audience - how would you feel if someone performed the trick to you. Would you just find it a little puzzle to try and solve, or is it something resonant and thought provoking? Its always difficult to do something so affecting with a deck of cards - people will always have their preconceptions of a card trick. Maybe this is something to play with - they will expect a puzzle like card trick, not something breathtaking and inexplicable.

Derren Brown says in his books that you should never compromise on the method, that the cheating should be hidden from the spectator; or 'invisible compromise' as he calls it. However, I think you should apply the same theory to the effect, dont compromise on the effect just so you can bring in some fancy sleights - they should never think they could spot something or even look back after and put it down to nimble fingers.


It is all connected, if you're loading a trick with all types of sleight of hand, even if its not suspicious to those involved - the effect will probably suggest sleight of hand, and this is what I'm trying to avoid.
Im trying to create effects that appear impossible and could not be acheived by sleight of hand. While of course they will not be totally convincing until I can get rid of the deck completely, they must just unsettle people enough to be worthwhile.

I hate to keep laboring the point, but its become something I'm quite passionate about!

Your point about the 10hearts/10diamonds thing is a whole other issue I enjoy - exploiting chance and coincidence. These can be harnassed for all kinds of miracles - but this post is long enough as it is!

Thanks again for such an interesting and provoking post!

Mark

Sexton Blake wrote: the tricks are performed to two women who appear to have very little English and absolutely no idea what's going on.

I dream of situations such as these.

pdjamez wrote:

Sexton Blake wrote: the tricks are performed to two women who appear to have very little English and absolutely no idea what's going on.

I dream of situations such as these.

hahaha

Don't we all!

If your interested in looking like a great slieght of hand guy pick up Stack Attack by Lew Brooks. Most of the routines in there are fairly easy to do and are pretty good as well.

Rick

Janus109 wrote:If your interested in looking like a great slieght of hand guy

Many thanks, but you may have somewhat missed what Ive been saying! Thanks anyway!

pdjamez wrote:

Sexton Blake wrote: the tricks are performed to two women who appear to have very little English and absolutely no idea what's going on.

I dream of situations such as these. :)

Well, even if you didn't, according the Sunday's 'Trick of the Mind', you will tonight.

One final thing, Mark - and I'll mention only a few bits and then leave you to rub your capably-wise chin (otherwise I'd lurch unstoppably into 10,000 words on the subject): Tarot cards. Use Tarot cards.
1) They incline people to psychologically move their heads away from sleights; somehow, taking out a Tarot pack puts specs minds in a different place.
2) You don't have to pretend to be psychic or mystical (though you can co-opt the atmosphere). There are lots of, um, plots. I tend to use the line that psychics often use psychology - "Here, let me show you a 'reading'-style thing that, I assure you, doesn't use supernatural means but will appear for all the world as though it must."
3) Maths-based tricks. Always the most clunky (and often unsalvageably so). But, just for one example, using - as isn't uncommon - 21 cards is a flashing light before you even start if you use a normal deck. However, show the major arcana, putting the minor arcana to one side - easily sellable, as the major arcana are what most people think of anyway when they think of a Tarot deck. Then remove the Death card (I often use a gag here - 'Just to avoid any unfortunate accidents.' - but you can play it serious - 'Tarot isn't real. But, just so that no one will feel uneasy, or worry if something - purely coincidentally - happens later...') You now have 21 cards, there's been no mention - or real clue - to your having that (or any specific) number, and it's all appeared to be perfectly reasonable.
4) They're great if your pushing a 'reading cues' agenda, because you can say that, even for people who are entirely sceptical, the Tarot images are powerful and distinctive and loaded with meaning; they will provoke subconscious reactions far more effectively than a normal deck would.

Thanks, thats an interesting point. Obviously bringing out a Tarot deck will invite cynicism, but if presented as something non-spiritual I imagine it can be used for some amazing effects. Your right, for some reason, if you use Tarot cards as opposed to a normal deck, your audience aren't going to think of sleight of hand - even if you are indeed doing this!
Yet another useful post - thanks!

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