Jon Racherbaumer - Sticks & Stones Number 5.pdf - J - animga

STICKS & STONES NUMBER 5

A leaflet for the left hand

Logical Twist

Although Bob Walker independently developed this approach, credit

must go to Daryl Martinez for the plot "twist" on Twisting the Aces.

His version appears in Paul Harris Reveals Some Of His Most

Intimate Secrets (1976) as "Twisted Aces". Walker worked out his

approach as still another logical extension of what he calls the Crux

Effect. He has developed these versions into an extensive

monograph which may appear on the market in the near future,

thus giving Twisters something to squirm about. Watch for it.

EFFECT - The four Aces are shown and held face-down in the

performer's left hand. Three of the Aces, each in turn, magically flip

face-up. The last Ace vanishes and reappears face-up in the middle

of the deck.

WORKING

1) Walker worked out two opening phases, each having features to

recommend it. The purpose of the opening phase is to show the

Aces and secretly get one of them reversed in the center of the

deck. Martinez, by the way, uses a technique I call the Divided Bold

Atfus. Students of his routine will understand the title. Instead of

this questionable handling, Walker uses Marlo's Bold Atfus as one

opening phase. This no-nonsense technique is very efficient and

gets the job done. (See Kabbala Three or Marlo's Magazine for a

description of this move.) The second possible opening phase uses

another Marlo technique. To wit:

Upon getting a shuffled deck, spread the cards face-up between

your hands. Up-jog each Ace when getting to it until all four Aces

are culled. When you up-jog the final Ace, don't bring it up as far as

the other three. Close the spread, leaving the Aces out-jogged as

shown below--

Here your right hand comes over to pivot the out-jogged Aces

clockwise to the right. As this is executed your left forefinger pushes

the lowermost Ace flush with the deck. You now have only three

Aces in your right hand, whereas the audience assumes you have

all four. Table the deck and explain your premise: the magical

flipping quality of the Aces.

2) For purposes of this description let's assume that the AS is face-

up in the center of the tabled deck. The order of the remaining

Aces--now face-up in your left hand—from the top is: AD - AC - AH.

3) Flip the cards face-down as you say, "It would be impossible for

me to hide the flipping of cards... like this... Execute a Double

Turnover to disclose the AC as you add: "...whether the card is one

or many..."

4) Turn your left hand palm downwards (Glide position) as your

right hand openly slides (actually glides) the AC out, turns it face-

up, and replaces it underneath. This action sequence is from the

Vernon routine, only three cards are used instead of four.

5) Turn your left hand palm up, revealing backs, and give the cards

an Elmsley-type count. Explain that the AH has magically turned

face-up. Retain the last card of the "count" in your right hand. Turn

it face-up and show the AC. Under the misdirection of this display,

your left hand once again turns palm downwards. This causes the

left-hand pair of cards to turn over. Since they are face-to-face, a

back still shows and the audience should be none the wiser.

6) Replace the shown AC face-down below the left-hand cards, then

adjust the packet for another Elmsley-type count. This time the AD

will show during the "count". Place the last card on the bottom,

retain a break, then execute Krenzel's Mechanical Reverse. As soon

as the Reverse is completed, your left fingers slide out the

lowermost card (AD) so that it's side-jogged to the left. Both red

Aces will be disclosed. Say, "...that takes care of the red Aces...

Now for the black Aces..."

7) Flip the packet face-down and do an Elmsley-type count to show

the face-up AC. Repeat the "count". This time, however, out-jog the

AC and place the last card on top. Remove the face-up AC and turn

it face-down on top. Repeat the "count" (3 cards as 4) with all the

cards face-down as you say, "The Ace of Spades is the most difficult

card... It doesn't turn face-up... It disappears !" Here you spread the

three cards and toss them face-up onto the table. Ribbon spread

the deck to conclude.

- Robert Walker, (as told to Jon Racherbaumer)

RACHERBAUMER NOTE: After Step 5 you can eliminate the

Mechanical Reverse by doing the following:

Replace the shown AC face-down below the left-hand cards as

already explained, then adjust the packet for another Elmsley-type

count. Do the "count" and place the last card on top. The AD will

show up during the count and will end face-up on the bottom.

Do the Through-the-Fist Flourish, thus secretly turning the cards

over. Flex the. cards and openly remove the top card, revealing the

face-up AC. Place the removed card on the bottom and immediately

do a Double Turnover. Do an Elmsley-type count to apparently show

four (?) face-down cards.

Conclude as per "Logical Twist". While this version works, it has

some obvious drawbacks. It is, however, angle-proof.

"TOO PERFECT" Imperfect?

My first reaction to Rick Johnsson's "The 'Too Perfect' Theory" is a

question --to which I do not necessarily expect an answer: Does Mr.

Johnsson perform magic regularly for laymen or is he one of the

"for magicians only" specialists? I ask this because his supposed

analysis of a spectator's reactions when watching a trick (p. 248,

paragraph 3) is a perfect example of magician's thinking, yet there

is no evidence to suggest that the lay spectator's thoughts follow

such pattern. Indeed, on the basis of many years of performing

exclusively for lay audiences, I would say that spectator reactions of

the sort described by Mr. Johnsson will rarely be encountered

outside of magic clubrooms or, perhaps, the Magic Castle, neither of

which are very typical performing situations.

RACHERBAUMER INTERJECTION: So begins Bill Zavis's rebuttal to

Rick Johnsson's controversial article found in Hierophant 5-6

(reprinted by Lou Tannen). This article stimulated several replies, all

addressed to me. No other articles appeared, pro or con, in other

magazines. Strange?

In future issues of Sticks & Stones I plan to personally express my

views on Johnsson's uncommon theory. Interested readers should

find a copy of Johnsson's article. If anyone cares to comment

further, please write me in care of the address included at the end

of this issue. Now back to Zavis...

Our theorist (Johnsson) opines that SOME TRICKS, BY VIRTUE OF

THEIR PERFECTION, BECOME IMPERFECT (his caps, not mine). He

then states, "As we have already tested the first half of the

theory..." If this is logic, make mine superstition! His sole "test" is

his wholly speculative "analysis," as unconvincing as it is

unsupported, referred to above. It is true that most people seem to

require some sort of explanation for the phenomenon they

encounter, but it is equally true that few people require very

detailed explanations to set their minds at rest. The lay spectator is

rare who analyzes a trick in detail in order to discover the

method...unless, of course, an ill-conceived or incompetently

executed performance has partly exposed the method, giving the

audience reason to speculate in detail; and heaven knows there are

far too many ill-conceived and incompetently executed

performances of magic these days, the average so-called magician

being no more fitted to perform in public than any other untrained,

amateurish actor. The lay spectator certainly realizes that the

magician is playing "tricks" on him, but if these tricks are played

with a modicum of skill, wit, grace, and charm, and if they are

presented as entertainments rather than puzzles, the average

audience seems quite content to let itself be entertained and

puzzled, seldom worrying about detailed methods or whatever.

In short, there is every reason to believe that a lay audience

expects to be deceived by a magician and accepts that it will be. If

not, why in heaven's name engage or go see a magician?

Is there, then, such a thing as a "too-perfect" trick? I doubt it. The

card trick Mr. Johnsson cites as an example certainly should not

qualify as one. If anything, it is already sufficiently imperfect

because its presentation is illogical, which might be part of the

trouble Mr. Johnsson has with it. If all you are going to do is tell the

spectator what card he looked at, there is no reason to have him

look at the cards at all. If cards are used for the selection, they

should be used for the revelation as well. (In fairness, it appears

from his subsequent remarks that Mr. Johnsson realizes this, at

least instinctively; it is his theory that I find nonsensical.) The

perfect version of the trick would be to tell the spectator what card

he merely thought of, with no cards being used. Here, of course, we

enter the realm of the mentalist, whom Mr. Johnsson seems to have

excluded from his general theory of deception. What good is such a

theory if it cannot be universally applied?

Perhaps the best answer to Rick Johnsson's illogic is to be found in

his own words in the third paragraph from the end of his article. He

acknowledges that many performers have been successfully

presenting "too-perfect" effects for years, and explains this by

assuming that "they were done at carefully chosen, psychologically

correct times (with an abundant supply of acting ability thrown in

for good measure)..."

I'm sure they were. That is a good description of the correct

approach for performing any trick, "perfect" or otherwise; though I

don't know why acting ability should be relegated to a parenthesis.

Perhaps it is the lack of such considerations, among others, that has

set Mr. Johnsson to worrying about too-perfect tricks. Certainly

such lacunae accounts for some of the poor performances I've seen

over the years. Performers would do far better to concentrate on

their imperfections rather than to worry about imagined

hyperperfections in their tricks.

- William Zavis

Interpretation of a Dream

July 18-20, 1976

EFFECT - A card is selected and lost in the deck through shuffles

and cuts. The cards are ribbon spread face-up. One card appears

face-down. The spread is flipped over, but the reversed card is NOT

the selection. The cards are scooped up and respread in a face-up

condition. When the reversed card is removed and shown it proves

to be the selection!

Edward Marlo devised "a couple of methods to this conditional

problem. I originally posed the problem in Talisman (Vol. 2-No. 19)

in 1971. The conditions of the problem are crucial. Here are the

exact words from Talisman:

THE DREAM

The Problem: A card is selected and apparently lost during

subsequent shuffles and cuts. The deck is ribbon spread face-down.

All the cards are apparently face-down. The ribbon spread is flipped

over, using the conventional flip-over flourish. Once the ribbon

spread is face-up, a single face-down card appears in the center of

the spread. The spread is flipped over again to disclose the face-

down card. It is NOT the selection. It remains in place. The ribbon

spread is scooped up and respread. The face-up selection has now

changed into the selection. IMPORTANT CONDITIONS: The

APPARENT handling should be very casual-looking with no delays,

intermittent cuts, or illogical pauses. The deck should be borrowed

and the performer, if using gaffs or other aids, should be clean at

the end. It's permissable to scoop up the spread and respread

rather than use the flip-over flourish. However, it would be more

startling to have everything happen during the flip-over flourish.

After this card problem appeared, no solutions immediately

appeared. Finally some so-called solutions appeared in 1976 in a

publication called Innovative Magic #1 . The solutions, drafted by

Jim Cozzens, Keith Best, and Roger Smith, deviate from the

conditions set forth in Talisman. Cardmen commonly commit this

Jon Racherbaumer - Sticks & Stones Number 5.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: