Antinomy No 3

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Table of Contents The Antinomy Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The Artful Ledger: Antics and Interludes – Jon Racherbaumer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Right Brain, Left Brain – Jon Racherbaumer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Believing is Seeing? – Jon Racherbaumer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Reflection – Dean Dill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Hotel Bills – Norman Beck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 100% Confidence – Jack Parker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Friction Aces – Jack Parker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Celebrity Search – Jack T. Koopmans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Sobriety Test – Matt Herbert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 The Honest Liar: Discovering Importance – Jamy Ian Swiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 In Closing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 Yesterday I was thinking about the whole idea of genius and creative people, and the notion that if you create some magical art, somehow that exempts you from having to pay attention to the small things. Bell Hooks For the person for whom small things do not exist, the great is not great. Jose Ortega Y Gasset I can do small things in a great way. James Freeman Clarke

ANTINOMY Vol. 1, Issue 3, August 2005. ANTINOMY is published quarterly by Antinomy Magic. Subscription rates are $72 for Domestic postage inside the United States and $92 for International Airmail shipping outside the United States. Antinomy Magic is a Sole Proprietorship of Eugene Taylor. ANTINOMY™, the phrases “Perception & Deception”™ and “Appearing at your door four times every year”™ are Trademarks of Antinomy Magic. The Antinomy Half-Moon and star-field logo are copyright © 2005 Antinomy Magic. Contents copyright © 2005 Antinomy Magic and the authors and creators presented here. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or technological, including photocopying and recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted in writing by the copyright owners. Submissions and subscriptions may be sent to: ANTINOMY, P.O. Box 39, Allenton, MI 48002. More information is available online at www.antinomymagic.com

page 1

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The ANTINOMY Perspective If weÕre ÒThree Times LuckyÓ and the ÒThird Times a Charm,Ó well then, we have arrived. One more time on time. Though I remain perplexed by comments that people make, assuming this publication will somehow fall off schedule. It almost sounds destined to do so. But about a year ago, I made a commitment, and intend to fulfill it. If I can’t, you’ll hear it from me, not through the rumor mill.

Betting on LVMI in Vegas If you haven’t heard, I gave a free copy of Issue #2 to every attendee at LVMI. That’s the “Las Vegas Magic Invitational” and it amounted to something like 150 copies. I figured a whole convention of potential subscribers would make it worthwhile. So far, that remains to be seen. It was a very cool convention though. Highlights for me included seeing Earl Nelson. Amazing calmness and smoothness with a deck of cards. Call him “Velvet.” It was also great seeing the creativity of Gaeton Bloom. Of course the whole convention was great with a pantheon of great (did I just say “great” again?) magicians including Michael Ammar, Alan Ackerman, Paul Harris, David Solomon, and John Bannon. This is a convention you can go to just to see the attendees. There’s no “A list, B list” differentiation here between performers and attendees. It’s all good. Congratulations to Danny Archer and Robert Allen as they continue to grow this convention. And a “Thank You” for allowing me to promote my magazine there.

Reno is spelled I.B.M. After my second IBM convention, I’m starting to think that five days is just a bit too long for a Magic convention. Give me two or three really compressed days. That’s better. I was a dealer at the IBM. Though stuck in the corner for the first two days, I was moved after that and things started picking up a bit. Snared a few subscriptions, met some subscribers, and talked to some other people as well. Michael Close again had nice things to say. I had a chance to speak to him at LVMI as well. Howie Schwarzman was charitable in his comments about this magazine and my Classic Pass. To be precise, I think he said Antinomy was “good” and my Pass was “not bad.” I enjoyed just having a chance to talk to him. I also enjoyed talking with Larry Becker and meeting Oscar Munoz. Let me just say, that if there was an award for “Best Dressed Magician,” it would have to go to Oscar for his sartorial flair. Probably the single best moment for me at the IBM involved the Magic Competitions, and it wasn’t in Close-Up (not that there weren’t good moments there. There were). It was seeing Arthur Trace perform his act. Truly remarkable. And the judges confirmed it by awarding him not only First Place in the Stage Competition, but also the rarely awarded Gold Medal. I want to thank Rick Merrill for helping me out at the show. We even managed to sell some copies of Home Schooled there.

A Lapse in Gaffs No “Gaffed Card Corner” this issue. I wanted to make room for one less card trick (does that make sense?). I never intended this to appear in every issue anyway. A handful of things are lined up for some point in the future. I’d be curious to know your preference though: Gaffed or non-Gaffed?

Corrections, Clarifications, and Credits Somehow the title of last issue’s “The Honest Liar” morphed a bit on it’s way to the Table of Contents. While the column was correctly titled “The Method is not the Trick,” the entry at the beginning incorrectly formed a contraction of two of those words. Sorry, Jamy.

page 2

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The ANTINOMY Perspective

Reinhard Mueller correctly points out that the 50 item list of sources presented for “Hofzinser’s Lost Ace-Problem” was a list he had come up with in 1993. He had posted this list online at The Genii Forum in December of 2004. In reviewing this posting, I noticed that many of the other six items included in the “Select Bibliography” along with Reinhard’s list had been posted in the same thread by Jacky Kahan (www.magicbooks.be). My apologies to both for the oversight in not accurately crediting the source of these credits. Bryan Brush politely pointed out that the source for Brandon Burton’s “Angled Aces” should have probably been more precisely cited. Brandon was directly inspired by the work of the Buck Twins (Dan and Dave Buck). It should be noted that the inspiration was a specific Four Ace production of their’s called “Molecule 2.” While there are some minor differences in the mechanics of the production, Brandon is the first to admit that what he primarily brought to this production was the somewhat easier setup for the production, incorporating the action of the Illogical Cut. Bryan also went on to say he was looking forward to this issue and seeing Dean Dill’s Reflection since “He fooled the heck out of me with that at LVMI.” Enjoy, Bryan. After seeing a posting by Bob Farmer on The Genii Forum saying that he enjoyed “The Hole Monte” from last issue, I received a package from Bob in the mail. It included a copy of his own trick called “Nothing to Lose.” This is a Monte-type routine using a card with a hole in it as well. Bob had custom cards printed that have solid red and blue surfaces (with white borders). This is a cool routine and the central gaff bears some relationship with the central gaff in “The Hole Monte.” If I’d been aware of it, I certainly would’ve mentioned it in the “Touchstones and Crossroads” section of that trick. To remedy that, I mention it here. Thanks, Bob. I still plan on playing with “Nothing to Lose” more someday soon and appreciate your sharing it with me. Skimming through books while looking for references led me to another credit related to “The Hole Monte.” It turns out the move where a single card is moved by the thumb when displaying the other side of the three card fan was previously printed in Charles Jordan’s Best Card Tricks (1992) in a routine called “Joker Monte.” Karl Fulves also adds his own notes regarding this routine. The flap card involved is different but the sliding movement is the same. Very interesting. Oh, and Gary Plants points out that Nate Leipzig’s name was misspelled once in Jon’s column. Given the number of appearances it made, I believe that means we batted 500 in this particular category.

Ghost in the Machine As I come close to completing this issue, it almost feels like something is conspiring to turn the words that opened this column against me while making other comments regarding the schedule prophetic. I’ve spent a lot of time with computers in my life, and I’ve had a couple of things happen over the last few days that have never happened to me before. Regardless of how many “Saves” I performed and how many regular backups I have done, I have still managed to lose hours of work with one complete file corruption and one “almost” file corruption. Luckily, I had the backups and tools to recover. Well, honestly, I guess it’s not luck, just part of the plan. I plan for problems even though I almost never have them. Still, even with those problems, it looks like I will manage to achieve my self-imposed mid-August deadline. I am striving to have each issue in the mail by the middle of the middle month of each quarter. Technically, I have three months to play with for each issue, but I’m not looking to slip behind. In fact, next issue, I’m looking to move that schedule up slightly. After all, I need some extra time to complete the bonus CD-ROM of material I owe each of you. It’s a bonus I think you can all look forward to. Enjoy. Gene Taylor Editor & Publisher ANTINOMY July, 2005

page 3

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger Jon Racherbaumer Antics and Interludes I love Eugene Burger’s phrase— "the antics of the pasteboards"—and I agree that card magic should consist of more than novel actions, cute bits, and amusing maneuvers. There must be something more than making cards jump, rise, change, multiply, disappear, reappear, penetrate, spin, and so on. Presenting a curious and inexplicable puzzle is not enough. Yet hard-core cardmen seldom tire of "pasteboard antics." Why not? They are fascinated by methodology. They love the covert and overt mechanics of tricks. They swoon over how action procedures are structured. In short, they love the parts that make tricks tricky. Lay people, on the other hand, are modestly interested in puzzles and tricks. If engaged at all, their involvement in trying to solve puzzles is short-lived. They find other aspects more meaningful. Over time, however, cardmen eventually catch on that lay people don’t care about the "inner workings" and the rest. As Ken Weber points out, audiences care about themselves and want to have fun. They desire meaningful experiences. Therefore, sooner or later cardmen, if they want to be successful entertainers, begin shifting their focus from modalities to creating dramatic magic. In other words, they cease doing tricks and begin concentrating on creating illusions. Along these lines, a distinction Jay Sankey recently made is worth repeating: "Puzzles reek of a desire to control the experience, while mysteries only bloom in moments where the performer relinquishes just the right amount of control, leaving the audience to do what they will with the elements of the experience." 1

Themes and Schemes Henning Nelms, writing in Magic and Showmanship (1969), said that "the interest that an audience takes in any routine will depend largely on its theme." What do we mean by "theme"? The simple answer is: Theme = Subject. If this is so, the challenge lies in discovering the exact nature of a given card trick’s subject. Answers to this question vary, especially when only "pasteboard antics" are taken into account. For example, what is the subject of "Out of This World"? Is the subject the person being tested for their apparently psychic powers? Is it the person (magician) administering the test, who may be exerting influence on the person being tested? Is it the action procedure that yields the results? Does it center on the playing cards? 1 Beyond Secrets, p. 127.

page 4

Photo: Erika Racherbaumer

A journal documenting the fringes of compelling card magic

The Artful Ledger

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Nelms also claimed that every conjuring theme has four elements: (1) The personalities involved; (2) The phenomenon being shown; (3) The explicit and implicit purpose; (4) The proof. While studying John Bannon’s Dear Mr. Fantasy (2005), I was struck by how effectively he makes his presentations thematic and how his "pasteboard antics" become more meaningful. These are aspects many creators gloss over or only lightly touch on. More on this later. To explore ways to convert, tweak, and redeem such "pasteboard antics," I’ve chosen three well-known packet tricks. They, with the possible exception of Roy Walton’s "Cascade," are not feature effects. They are brief, atmospheric tricks that serve to create a mood. They can also be used to begin a "set," "fill in," or "link" more robust episodes in one’s performance. There is something momentary and fragile about Interludes. Magicians love them because of their grab-bag, ragtag, episodic character. If a trick features a few cool moves, a sweet subtlety or two, and a "cute" or "killer" ending, magician’s are satisfied. Because they focus on the method, they scarcely pay attention to patter and presentation. Consider Roy Walton’s "Cascade." This is a packet trick featuring lots of antic playfulness and magicians quickly glommed onto it. It is one of those tricks that you can literally "count" on. If you are unfamiliar with this effect or have forgotten it, this is how it looks in the eyes of the laity: Four duplicate Kings are shown face up one at a time and one of the Kings is openly turned face down. Then, without any maneuvering, another King magically turns face down. Finally, all four Kings turn face down. Everyone sees blue backs. This procedure is repeated twice, the four Kings turning face up and face down again. Next, one of the face-down blue Kings is taken away and placed in the magician’s pocket. When the remaining face-down blue Kings are spread, the pocketed King has returned to the packet face up. The packet is merely tapped and one of the other three face-down Kings turns face up. There are now two face-up Kings and two facedown Kings. The two face-down blue Kings are removed from the fan one at a time and their faces become blank. The other two face-up Kings are turned over one at a time, revealing unusual back designs: one is red-backed with the words "Hanky Panky" written on it; the other has a mirror-finish.

In less than 90 seconds, a lot has happened. The audience saw three sequential counts, three displacements, three transfers, and two open reversals. What they did not see, which also accounted for the inexplicable, magical parts, were the nine magical reversals, the surprising transition from pocket-to-packet, and the four climactic, out-of-the-blue transformations. In short, 14 mini-effects take place. As packet tricks go, this is a high-yield outcome. Furthermore, you begin and end with ostensibly four cards, which may be examined when you finish. This is, as mentioned earlier, a grab-bag, ragtag winner. Cardmen loved it for the reasons already stated: cool moves, a sweet subtlety or two, and a "killer" ending; hence, they were satisfied. So was I. The public was always responsive. So were magicians. This being said, should we really be satisfied? Or should we ask ourselves if we have a responsibility to convert such acceptable "pasteboards antics" into presentations that are sensible, interesting, dramatic, and humanly relevant? "Cascade" plays. But, over and above its cumulative surprises, should we tack on an interesting narrative? Can the trick have meaning? Can it be humanized in some way? Yes.

page 5

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger

When I started performing "Cascade" for lay people, I was dissatisfied with simply narrating in blow-by-blow fashion what was seemingly taking place. This was patter meant for radio. Obviously the audience could see what was happening; therefore, my patter was dull and redundant. Jay Sankey calls such patter "descriptive presentation." This is a useful term for the patter most entry-level magicians utter. ("I have here an ordinary pack of cards…and this glass. I’ll put the deck into the glass…blah, blah, blah…") Sankey adds that "descriptive presentations invariably reduce an effect to a trite level and fail to establish any kind of relationship between the effect and anything else in the world, including the performer and his audience." Some descriptive patter is unavoidable because there are instructions and remarks that are necessary. Sankey breaks them down to three types: functional, informational, and emotional.

Examples: Functional: "Hold your hand palm down and cover this card." Informational: "Notice that the deck is randomly mixed." Emotional: "I won $3000 playing poker with this deck and it was given to me by my renegade uncle who was killed in a duel in the desert in Las Vegas." There are a couple of simple rules to keep in mind: • It is unnecessary to comment on what a spectator can clearly see. • It is unnecessary to comment on what a spectator easily understands, based on what he sees. What you say should be about the spectator and the unique connection you are trying to make and about implicit, occult aspects of the phenomenon that you are revealing. With these thoughts in mind, my solution to humanizing "Cascade" and making a unique connection to spectators was to relate a personal anecdote. This provided pretext and premise. There was now a reason to demonstrate the "pasteboard antics." This was my subject: The audience would watch a reenactment of something that apparently happened to me. This transferred the "victim role" from them to me, deflecting the sting or frustration that might arise from being baffled. What follows then is my attempt to convert, tweak, and redeem the pasteboard antics of "Cascade." It is by no means the last word; however, it shows how it’s possible to make an Interlude more personal. My goal was to give the impression that I was revealing "another world," which satisfies Ken Weber’s succinct definition of entertainment: “My [Weber] definition of entertainment is: anything that purposefully transports your mind to another world." 2 If you are familiar with "Cascade" get out the cards and follow along with the patter. Presentation: I begin by telling the audience about attending my first magic convention when I was about fifteen years old.

"You cannot imagine how weird and wonderful a magic convention can be. You spend five days and nights in a hotel with two-thousand other magicians and it’s trick-trick-trick, 24-7. After the third day, since you scarcely sleep, you are thrust into a state of altered consciousness. After awhile everything seems magical. You have indeed stepped through Alice’s Looking Glass. "On the third day of the first convention I ever attended, at three-in-the-morning, I saw this guy standing in the elevator hold2 Maximum Entertainment (2003), p. 17.

page 6

The Artful Ledger

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

ing a few cards in his hands. Since he was not playing with a full deck, I knew he had to be a magician. So, I ran up and asked, ‘What are you doing with those cards?’ He said that he was practicing ‘moves.’ When I noticed that the cards were duplicates, I definitely knew he was a magician. "I told him that I loved moves. He seemed unmoved, but nevertheless showed me four face-up Kings. Then he removed one of the Kings of Clubs and turned it face down. He said, ‘This is the way normal people turn over a card, which isn’t very magical.’ He then told me to watch him like a hawk, which I did. Then he asked me if I saw the bottom card magically turn over…which I didn’t. I was amazed. Then the he said somewhat smugly, ‘Well, if you missed that…you missed the other two Kings when they turned face down, as well!’ Well, I was doubly amazed. "Seeing that I was dumbfounded, he removed one of the face-down Kings and turned it face up on top. He then said, ‘I can do this all night long. Watch closely. If I turn this King face up, the bottom King of Clubs will turn face up. In fact, all four Kings of Clubs are now face up again!" "I couldn’t believe my senses. But now I was emboldened to ask, ‘What do you do with these fantastic moves? They aren’t magical by themselves.’ Well, he squinted and leaned forward, eye-to-eye, and said in a whisper: ‘If you want to see something truly magical, watch this!’ He then removed the top King into what he called the Invisible Palm and placed it in his pocket. Then he said that the King was now invisible and that he could remove it from his pocket and nobody could see it. And when he did so, I saw nothing. Yet when he tapped the packet, the invisible King became visible again. It returned to the packet and was face up. He tapped the packet again and another King turned face up! Then he grinned and told me that turning cards over is more manipulative than magical. It was due to sleight of hand. He began to giggle. Then he became solemn and asked me if I’d like to see something truly impossible! "He removed one of the face-down Kings and rubbed its face on his sleeve. He said, ‘By simply rubbing this card, all of its ink will disappear. And when he showed it to me, the card was blank! Then he did it with the other face-down King. "Finally, he looked me squarely in the eye and asked,‘You know how this is done, don’t you?’ I was mute because I didn’t have a clue. Well, he turned over one of the remaining Kings and said, ‘Some say it is a matter of hanky-panky! Others say that it’s done with mirrors!"

II The following approach is inspired by John Bannon’s excellent presentation in Dear Mr. Fantasy (2004) with its wonderful use of a spectator’s upturned hands and the crossing and uncrossing of these hands at the wrist. I strongly recommend this book. John understands how to "frame" an effect and take into account the importance of precise timing. His effect, "On Daley’s Aces," converts a straight-forward puzzle into sensible, interesting, and humanly relevant presentation.

Right-Brain, Left-Brain As mentioned earlier, when two objects magically transpose it is crucial that witnesses remember where the objects were originally located before they changed places. Otherwise the effect is unclear or, worse, not perceived at all. In the case of "Daley’s Aces," pairs of cards—the red and black Aces—change places. 3 The cards are shown and tabled face down, one pair to the right, the other to the left. Sometimes the spectator retains one of the pairs. However, once the cards are dealt face down, there is nothing on 3 This effect was published in The Dai Vernon Book of Magic (1957) under the title “The Last Trick of Dr. Jacob Daley,” pp. 210-214.

page 7

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger

their uniform backs to identify or differentiate them. Lay people, even though they have just seen the faces of the cards and clearly saw where they were placed, often forget. They misremember which pair was initially tabled and which pair is in their hand. So, the basic strategy when doing such transpositions is to emphasize and re-emphasize the supposed situation and then not delay the magical outcome. Although I have performed "Daley’s Aces" for over forty years, the visible maneuvering required to set-up for the switches is a bit peculiar. The magician shows the four face-up Aces one at a time and in the process apparently places the red Aces between the black Aces. Then he turns the packet over and takes the top card, supposedly a black Ace, and deals it face down to the table without showing it. Next, he takes the bottom card, shows it to be the other black Ace, momentarily places it face down on top of the other two cards, and then deals it face down onto the tabled Ace. What is the reason for "sandwiching" the Aces at the beginning? From the standpoint of "maneuvering fun," it gives one the opportunity to practice the Biddle Move and a Bottom Double Lift. Edward Marlo’s "No Glide Aces – Second Method" from The Cardician (1953) is less "move-y" (Bannon uses it), but it has an open adjustment (displacement?) of a card. This method, which does not necessarily improve on Bannon’s version, simply provides another example of how the "antics" of a straight-forward transposition can be made more interesting and perhaps meaningful. Requirements: The four Aces and the Three of Clubs. Set-up: Arrange these cards in this order from the face: AC – AS – AH – AD – 3C. Method: Have a female spectator agree to assist and say, "This experiment requires the delicacy of a woman’s hands and the incisiveness of the feminine mind." Ask the woman to hold her hands palm up and cross them at the wrists with the right wrist crossing above the left wrist. Ask, "Are you right-handed?" Regardless of her answer, add: "No matter which hand you favor, what I’m about to show you has to do with your brain and how it is connected to your right and left hands. The human brain is curiously hard-wired and the two hemispheres do different things. Things are perceived and analyzed as a whole by the right hemisphere, whereas the left hemisphere breaks things down into their components." Continue: "Your right hand is connected to your left brain, which is good at working out jigsaw puzzles and reading body language. Besides your mind and hands we will use these four cards." Hold the packet face up in your left hand and spread the cards, holding the last two as one to show the Aces. Close the spread and flip the packet face down. Reverse count the cards one at a time into your right hand, taking each successive card onto the previous one. The last two cards are placed as one onto the rest. Square up. Push over the top card so that it is side-jogged to the right and buckle the bottom card. Then perform a four-card turnover, letting the cards coalesce and fall flush onto the single left-hand card. It should appear as though you are flipping the top two cards face up.

page 8

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger Again push over the top AD to reveal the red Aces as you again buckle the bottom card. (Fig. 1) Your right thumb and fingers then grasp all of the cards above the bottom one and moves them to the right. The spectator clearly sees the red Aces. (Fig. 2) Flip all of the cards face down and flush with the left-hand card. Say, "The red Aces, symbolize to some ‘wealth’ and ‘love’—diamonds and hearts. But note the sharp points of the diamond. Diamonds can cut. Diamonds can cut diamonds, and hearts can pulse, pound, and break. Love can fulfill and bleed."

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Push over the top two cards, apparently the red Aces, and take them into your right hand. (Fig. 3) Say, "The red Aces go into your right hand. Remember: Red in your Right. The words ‘red’ and ‘right’ both begin with the letter R." Place the supposed red Aces face down into the spectator’s upturned right hand. (Fig. 4) Push over the top card of those squared in your left hand, adding: "I’ll hold the dark Aces—the spades and clubs." (Fig. 5) Pull the top card flush again with your left thumb and then prepare to turn the cards face up and flash the face of the 3C. This, in reality, applies the Pip-Covering Subtlety. Your palm-down right hand grasps the outer Fig. 5 Fig. 6 end of the cards, covering the outermost club-pip and the number "3." Your left hand covers the innermost club-pip as it turns palm down, rotating the cards face up. (Fig. 6) Your right fourth finger covers the "3" but leaves the small club-index-pip exposed. This is a casual, quick display. You literally "flash" the face of the bottom 3C. The spectator sees the center pip and assumes that you flashed the AC. After "flashing" the card, rotate the cards back to their face-down position in your left hand. Position the three cards lower in your left hand in preparation to Bottom Cop the 3C.

page 9

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger

Buckle and Cop the 3C as your right hand moves forward with the two red Aces, holding them face down and slightly spread. (Fig. 7) Place the supposed black Aces face down onto the spectators upturned left hand. Say, "The left hand is the sinister hand, which now holds the sinister Aces—black as the Ace of Spades, dark, dreary, dreadful…" (Fig. 8) Fig. 7

Say, "Now the red Aces in your right hand are to my right, but your left brain is concentrating on the relative position of the red Aces. Red is on the right…Right? In your right hand to my right…Right?"

Fig. 8

Ask the spectator to uncross her hands. (Fig. 9) Then say: "Look what has happened? Are the red Aces on your left?" Permit the spectator to answer and then add: "But they must still be in your right hand…No?" Again, let the spectator reply.

“The answer is that the red Aces always will remain on right side, but they are now in your left hand. They double-crossed your brain and criss-crossed between your hands.” Turn over the pairs in the spectator’s hands to show the transposition.

Fig. 9

Say, "Ah, yes, the mind is a wondrous thing. Emily Dickinson, the poet and recluse, wrote: ‘The Brain—is wider than the Sky—For— put them side by side—The one the other will contain—With ease—and You—beside.’ ” The handling of this transposition is by Edward Marlo. 4

III Believing is Seeing? The next pasteboard antics are based on a packet effect by Jean-Jacques Sanvert. My presentation is different and eliminates a discrepancy found in other versions. 5 The goal is to create a preliminary atmosphere of uncertainty. I want to make spectators feel less secure about their ability to accurately perceive what they see. Notice that I say "less secure." I do not want them to feel inferior or somehow defective. I simply want to gently demonstrate the thin line that separates illusion and reality. Set-up: Arrange the four Aces in this order from the face (bottom): AD - AH - AC - AS.

4 This appeared in Expert Card Chicanery (1971) by Alton Sharpe, under the title “Jump-Jump Aces,” pp. 31-32. 5 Jean-Jacques Sanvert published his packet effect in Best of Friends (1982) called “Moving Up.” He was inspired by J.K. Hartman’s “On the Up and Up” from Odd Lifts (1971), but changed the technical handling of the lifts and added the transposition climax.

page 10

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger Method: Ask someone, "Do you agree with the statement that ‘seeing is believing?’ If so, please tell me how many cards do you see?" Hold the Aces face up and fanned in your left hand. (Fig. 1) Let the spectator answer and then ask, "What are they?" The spectator should say "four" and "Aces." Say, "Yes, I have four Aces—two red Aces and two black Aces…two reds and two blacks." Close the fan and flip the packet face down. Fan the cards again and add, "Yes, it’s said that ‘seeing is believing,’ but some psychologists say that ‘believing is seeing’ and that you must expect to see something before you can really see it."

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Thumb over the top two cards into your right hand and ask the spectator, "Just guessing…What is the color of these Aces?" (Fig. 2) Most spectators will correctly answer "black," but if they are misled by Marlo's "Buffalo'd" swindle, they will reply "red."

If they correctly say "black," say: "That’s right. You saw black and believed these to be black." Show the right hand pair to be the black Aces. (Fig. 3) If they incorrectly say "red," say: "That’s what I would have said, but this shows that we cannot trust our senses." Show the black Aces. Replace them onto the left-hand pair and square up. Say, "So, we now believe that the black Aces are on top. If I slowly reverse the order of the cards, where are the black Aces now?" Perform a deliberate Elmsley Count to apparently reverse the order of the cards. Perform it slowly and after the initial exchange, steadily push off and drop each of the last two cards of the count. Don’t make this reverse-count look manipulative or clever. (Fig. 4)

Fig. 5

At this stage, some spectators will suspect that the black Aces are not where they should be. If so, it does not matter. If someone says, "I think the black Aces are on the top," say: "Why would you believe that?" If he says that the black Aces are on the bottom, say: "That’s what I would say…and you and I say this because we believe it’s true. Didn’t we clearly see them go to the bottom?" Thumb over the top card (AS) and take it face down into your right hand and slowly turn it face up, adding: "But the black Aces seem to be here on top…" (Fig. 5)

page 11

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger

Then perform a Two-card Push-off with your left thumb and while holding the face-up AS, use your right second fingertip to flip the "double" face up to reveal the AC. Continue: "…but is it really true?" (Fig. 6) Let the "double" fall flush onto the left-hand card (AD). The spectators see the AS and AC. (Fig. 7) Next, use the face-up AS to apparently flip the AC face down. To do this, slightly buckle the bottom card and then actually flip the top two card(s) face down. Place the AS face down on top.

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Immediately take the top pair (AS-AH) face down into your right hand and keep them spread as your left hand spreads its pair. The spectator clearly sees four cards, two in each hand. Openly transfer the right-hand pair underneath the left-hand pair. (Fig. 8) Slowly square the cards and say, "I would Fig. 8 swear at this point that the Black Aces are unmistakably on the bottom. Don’t you agree?"

Fig. 9

If the spectator turns out to be a contrarian, insisting that the black Aces are elsewhere, say: "No, no. Don’t tell me what you think or believe. Tell me what you see." Repeat the previous step. That is, thumb over the top card (this time, the AC) and take it face down into your right hand and slowly turn it face up. Then perform a Two-card Push-off with your left thumb and while holding the face-up AC, use your right second fingertip to flip the "double" face up to reveal the AS. Let the "double" fall flush onto the left-hand card and again use the face-up AC to apparently flip the AS face down. Slightly buckle the bottom card and flip the top two card(s) face down as you retain and hold the AC face up. Push off the top card of the left-hand packet (AD) with your left thumb and take it face down onto the face-up AC, keeping it jogged to the left. Move both cards to your right and table the supposed AS face down. Say, "I’ll tell you what…let’s simplify this a bit by getting rid of one of the Black Aces. This time we will use only the Ace of Clubs." Place the AC face down onto the left-hand cards. Again, using a slight Buckle or a Push-Off, grasp the inner right corner of the top two cards between your right thumb and first/second fingers. Keep them aligned and openly transfer the card(s) under the left-hand (single) card. (Fig. 9) Say, "If I openly place the Ace of Clubs on the bottom, tell me, based on what you saw, think, and believe, where the Ace of Clubs is. Take your choice."

page 12

The Artful Ledger

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Regardless of his reply, perform a Double Turnover to reveal the AC on top and add "This is peculiar. One can’t be sure of what to think or believe." Perform another Double Turnover and slowly transfer the top single card (AH) to the bottom again, saying, "I’m seeing it now…" Perform a Single Turnover to show the AC is back on top as you finish the patter line: "…but now I’m beginning to really believe that the Ace of Clubs never moved at all. It only seems to move." Again, using a slight Buckle, grasp the inner right corner of the top two cards and openly transfer them under the left-hand (single) card. Say, "Is this card the Ace of Clubs? Is it definitely now on the bottom?" Perform another Double Turnover to show the AC back on top and say, "Sometimes I do this all day long…(pause) I have no life…" Perform another Double Turnover to apparently flip the AC face down and then slowly and cleanly deal the top card (AH) onto the card already face down on the table, saying: "Let’s get rid of the other black Ace, as well." Situation Check: In reality, both red Aces are on the table and the black Aces are in your left hand. Direct attention to the two cards in your left hand. Lift the top card and peek at its face without letting the spectator see it. Say, "If I place the Ace of Hearts on the bottom…" Transfer the top card to the bottom and square up as you finish the patter line, "…where is the Ace of Hearts now?" As soon as the spectator answers, flip over the tabled pair to show the red Aces and say, "No! It’s over here!" Finally, flip the lefthand pair face up to reveal the Black Aces to cap the routine. 6

WHADDAYASAY? "Don’t talk unless you can improve the silence." - Vermont Proverb "Using words to describe magic is like using a screwdriver to cut roast beef." - Tom Robbins At the tender age of eleven, I read: "I give you the patter I would use, but I want you to change it or add to it to suit your own personality. Remember, too, that patter must be varied to fit the occasion." Harlan Tarbell wrote it. I was not particularly impressed at the time, but Tarbell lived a mile away and I had actually seen and heard him onstage. To my amazement he really uttered this kind of patter and it worked for him. He seemed as home-spun and Midwestern as Carl Sandburg, who also lived in my hometown— Elmhurst, Illinois. Both were talented and a little strange. Bob Parrish wrote that Tarbell "was an all-American nut,” but also said that he "was a magician who believed in magic." Tarbell was a man in search of occult truths and deeper meanings. My mother was a Christian Scientist and I accompanied her to church from time to time. I frequently saw Tarbell sitting in a back row— looking studious, bespectacled, and lost in thought. He donated the entire Tarbell Course in Magic—four volumes at the time—to our local library. I continually checked out these volumes, poured over their contents, and practiced the tricks. And, alas, I memorized much of Tarbell’s quaint patter, which no doubt sounded odd and pitiful when I uttered it. But when Tarbell spoke the same words in his folksy, conversational manner, they sounded authentic and down-to-earth. Why?

6 This interlude effect can be performed in conjunction with Marlo’s “No Glide Aces” (The Cardician) and “The Last Trick of Dr. Jacob Daley” (The Dai Vernon Book of Magic).

page 13

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger

Perhaps it was because they emanated from the inner space of his unique consciousness? The words were mundane, but audiences believed him when he spoke them. Tarbell also wrote: "You will find great enjoyment in making up patter for yourself." Well, at the time making up anything was a daunting task. When I joined the Mazda Mystic Ring (Junior Division) in 1954, my peers were memorizing patter books, especially those churned out by Robert Orben. Yet as awkwardly armed as they were, they were still resistant to talking to large audiences. This is why many of us developed silent, manipulative acts and worshiped Cardini and Channing Pollock. We knew that talking was more difficult than learning a simple presentation or performing the mechanics of a given trick. ***** Several years ago, a short-lived, public debate about spontaneous and scripted patter was waged in Magic magazine. (Richard Kaufman and Eugene Burger) The rabble half-listened, fidgeted a bit, then looked at ads trumpeting new tricks. The rabble is disinterested. They rarely, if ever, script anything. Instead they aimlessly wander through the field of magicdom’s odd oral-tradition and let a few cockleburs adhere. They pick up mediocre patter-phrases, time-worn gag lines, and other verbal "burrs." They eavesdrop, badly mimic, ostentatiously crib, and flagrantly steal all kinds of patter by others. Then they invariably rationalize: "I say everything in my own words!" Uh-huh. So… …why aren’t books on patter and showmanship popular? Why aren’t magic enthusiasts interested in theory and theatrics? Why is the Medium the Message they want to hear? Make no mistake about it. Tricks are the medium and modi operandi is the heart of the game. Henning Nelms, in Magic and Showmanship, titled his chapter on patter, "Words." Therein he strongly believed in characterization and scripting and passionately wrote about the playwright's approach. He wrote about how to create scripts and explained the difference between memorization and extemporization. Dai Vernon, about the same time, was exhorting everyone to pay attention to Nelms’ teachings. Vernon of course was a terrific talker and knew that patter was supposed to sound spontaneous and genuine. He understood the allure of his own curmudgeonly way of speaking, which sounded human, passionate, experienced, and grounded in his life experiences. There is much conflicting advice. Nelms instructed us to script our patter. S.H. Sharpe in Neo-Magic suggested the opposite: "To tell a beginner that he should write his own patter is absurd." Elsewhere: "The diversity of opinion expressed upon this subject has been extreme." David Devant, in Our Magic, similarly wrote: "In writing patter, of course, a performer may obtain assistance. But, so far as public delivery is concerned, he is bound to do the work himself." Nelms thought that the prime requisite of a good magician was an ability to act and be an actor. Shades of Robert Houdin. A good actor, he said, can play any part and convincingly deliver line readings, regardless of who created the dialogue. Few will disagree with this claim; however, how many would-be magicians are good actors? How many have the innate gifts to become a good actor? Not many. Many years ago, a local magician wanted to perform Billy McCombs’ "Hole Game." (I think the routine was marketed?) This poor, misguided fellow memorized everything, made a costume and all the props, then performed it at a banquet. Although this daring chap ordinarily performed well and had a decent act of his own, his rendition of the "Hole Game" bombed. It died the death. It stunk. Billy’s routine, methinks, requires more than good acting. It requires Billy McComb. Today it would still need Billy McComb and a time-machine. A magician is not an impostor playing the part of an impersonator.

page 14

The Artful Ledger

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

A good rule is to story-board the action of a trick and search for a plot that can be plausibly and entertainingly recounted. Find out what the actions mean to you and what they may mean to lay people. Talk to yourself about it. Real talk—repeatable, usable, relevant patter—will then emerge from this experience and from every subsequent performance you give. There are also a few loose scripts that have been audience-tested. "Sam The Bell-Hop" comes to mind. Also, the strategically scripted "Jack Of Diamonds" is a sure-shot presentation. Many magicians (John Shirley, Eugene Burger, Eric Mead and Bill Malone) have demonstrated the vibrancy of such show-and-tell recitations. If you can execute a good false shuffle, the presentation seems wildly extemporaneous. By the way, Marlo never liked the "wired" aspect of "Sam The Bell-Hop." He knew that everything hinged on the story. Although he admired Malone’s wild rendition, the trick left him cold. One afternoon at the Three Bears restaurant in Chicago, Marlo sat quietly as the "usual suspects" argued the pros and cons of various story routines. This was more than Marlo could bear.

"This is bullshit," he roared. "Somebody shuffle their deck!" He then took the mixed deck, chugged on his cigar, and began speaking in his low-pitched, whiskey-whisper: "One dark and stormy night, at the..." He dealt the first two cards face up, revealing a Six and Two, immediately adding, "...at Club Sixty-two...." The next card was a Three. Continuing: "....at three-in-the-morning...." He continued making up silly but inventive patter for every card that randomly appeared face up during the deal. It was amazing because he had to make sense and be relevant to the cards that happened to turn up. The last card he dealt, believe it or not, was the Joker! Most of crew was still giggling and shaking their heads. When the Joker appeared, Marlo stared at it, grinned, and said: "And only a fool—a goddamn, goofy Joker—would believe or tell a stupid story with a shuffled deck of cards!" How sweet it was! So, is there a lesson here? Hugard and Braue in Expert Card Technique wrote: "Don't try to use another person's talk; it may be very good as he uses it and very bad as you do it; and, more to the point, in creating your own patter you will have evolved a presentation which you alone have." Sounds like good advice, no? Yet Fischer-Sharpe did not tamper with Hofzinser's patter and recommended that “It is probably best to adhere to Hofzinser's original address and instructions. They are the result of many years' development and the acme of technical perfection." Hmmmmm. Some tricks are clearly patter-driven. "Color Monte" preens its patter and the trick’s contagion was wide-spread. Everybody knew the tale told and owned a well-worn set of the "cute" cards (despite what Jamy Swiss says). Like trolls on a tear, hundreds of magician-hobbyists memorized the script of "Color Monte" and practiced its repetitious moves. As unfortunate as it sounds, the sophomoric pith of its patter plays in Davenport, Iowa as well as in the Silicon Valley. Its anecdote is antidotal, its sickness is its cure. Has anyone seen anybody perform an original presentation of "Color Monte" with original patter? Probably not. Dariel Fitzkee in Showmanship For Magicians wrote (of patter): "Have it written, or write it yourself." Duh. Most magic enthusiasts know how to state the obvious and kick-start their own running commentary on whatever actions are being performed. "Good evening, ladies and germs..." "The idea is..." "Do you want to change your mind or do you like the mind you have?" "Pick a card, any card..."

page 15

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger

Learning how to talk while performing magic is like learning about love-making. When we are young, we want to know hundreds of tricks, hundreds of moves, hundreds of clever subtleties. We long for a Kama Sutra of Modus Operandi. In the slap-happy process, we partially listen to what dealers and pitchmen say. We hear spiels and fast-talk. Yet the doohickeys and doodads distract us. We are beholden to gimmicks and gewgaws. Talk? What’s talk? Talk is cheap. Talk is easy. But... Patter is another thing. Patter is difficult. Have we forgotten that "patter" is based on "paternoster" and refers to a "rapidly garbled recitation of Latin prayers by priests saying Mass"? It now refers to any rapid, glib, and deceptive speech. (The adjective "deceptive" is no doubt due to magicians, salesmen, unholy priests, and politicians?) How many rapid, glib recitations have you heard during your lifetime? How much Magick-Talk and Demo-Speak have you consciously and subconsciously absorbed? Little by little, you have absorbed as pitchmen and fellow enthusiasts palavered away. Bit by bit you have subconsciously absorbed Magick-Talk—slick gibberish for Everyman. Your brain is crammed with fragmentary spiels, hoary vaudevillian phrases, dotty, dangling laugh-lines, Orbenesque bits, Lorrainean commentary, instruction-sheet palaver, and stolen phrases. If words are "containers of consciousness" (William Gass), Magick-Talk is the Tupperware of Patter Pith, which accounts, in part, for the impoverished state of the palaver today. How does one learn to talk and magish? Consider this: 1. Develop an appreciation of words and realize their power to affect human beings. Learn poetry. Read aloud. 2. Understand silence and understatement. 3. Be an interesting, amusing version of yourself. Albert Goshman eventually became an interesting, amusing version of himself after he moved to California. I never saw early Goshman perform during his baker-is-a-faker days in New York. Back then his hair was cropped short, a 50’s crew-cut. He wore bow ties. In early publicity photos he grinned like a shyster, holding eight coins between his chubby fingers. His mannerisms in those days were probably somewhat coarse and uncultivated. (Imagine Homer Simpson performing a dove act!) Put it this way: Albert was a bit untidy—not ringaround-the-collar grungy, but mildly unkempt. He looked lumpen, rumpled, and left-over. After five minutes at a dinner table, the front of Albert’s suit looked like a loaf of bread had exploded in his lap. He also had the slightly groggy, preoccupied expression of someone who just woke up after a long night sleeping in a boxcar. In short, he seemed an unlikely candidate to become a close-up entertainer. Early Goshman was himself. He did not mimic anybody, although some of his patter was probably low-rent Carl Ballantine and Roy Benson, laced with insults. He had great chops, but lacked elegance and finesse. When he moved to the west coast and was obliged to earn a living by magishing, the Real World was a point-blank reality-check. You do not crepitate in the drawing room. So, this rough-cut miracle-worker was tamed by a New World, and his long stint at the Magic Castle refined and smoothed his plebeian self. Albert had good instincts and he apparently listened to the wise and experienced counsel of his Castle compeers...at least the ones he respected. In time, he became an interesting, amusing version of himself. His dexterity was preeminent and would carry him along. His verbal skills

page 16

The Artful Ledger

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

were deficient, but he learned to suppress all the wise-guy stuff and low-brow b.s. Since he would never be eloquent or poetic, he developed a laconic, almost sleepy-eyed, laid-back style. Fewer words. His patter became tactically spare: "Say ‘go.’ Went!" "My name is Albert; I’m going to magish for you!" "Too late!" "Show them!" His soft, gentle, teasing, monosyllabic words precisely punctuated his magical actions like an easy-listening jazz score. And this pruned and perfected patter befitted his better version of himself.

4. Learn scripted patter and then never use it verbatim. 5. Study acting and learn everything about theater. 6. Learn how to spin a yarn. Lawrence Durrell wrote: "We live lives of select fiction." Dai Vernon’s select fictions, for example, revealed truths that real life obscures.

7. Learn the yin and yang of patter theory and then pirouette on the golden mean. 8. Study stand-up comedy and watch comedians perform on television without the audio. If you can perform stand-up comedy, you can do almost anything. Nothing separates the men from the boys, the talented from the nontalented, like stand-up comedy does. It’s the harshest reality-check in show business.

9. Story-board the action of a trick and search for a plot that can be plausibly and entertainingly recounted. This means finding out what the plot means to you and what it could mean to others. Talk to yourself about this. Subsequent real talk— repeatable, usable, relevant patter—will emerge from this auto-experience and from every live, talking performance you give.

10. Practice scripts of tricks that have been time-tested and audience-tested 11. Do not copy anybody. Seek instead to understand why good patter works and the elements that underlie its cogency and effectiveness. Finding an apt trope is as difficult as finding the right words to say.

So... Where does that leave us? Are we left high and dry in a no man’s land, dumbed-down and dumbstruck? Maybe. But meditate on this: The words we choose to utter when we perform are emergent properties. They emerge from consciousness as we deal with the point-blank exigencies of performance. Our consciousness, including everything we remember, contains what we know: memorized scripts, plans of action, protocols of presentation, gag lines, wordplay, folk-tales, good and bad jokes, and lines of poetry. The variables found in the close-up environment do not exist onstage. You are unprotected by a Fourth Wall. You find yourself in a different place, in peculiar circumstances, vulnerable, surrounded by persons (other minds) in a situation of inescapable interaction. These elements require psychic preparedness, improvisational grace, and an ability to talk to and with strangers. Can we develop this ability? Perhaps you should stand onstage without any tricks, gimmicks, apparatus, and ready-made patter? In this stark, naked state, you will be forced to shrink and cower or speak for yourself. You will have to speak up and out. The test would be real. The reality-check would be telling? Can you cast a magical spell using language? Can you bewitch an audience with only words—your words, emerging from your mind, tempered by your experiences, leavened by your dreams and nightmares, expressing what you think is funny, wondrous, and mysterious? Can you express who you are as you become who you were meant to be? If so, extend your hand. The clean one.

page 17

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The Artful Ledger

IV I hope the foregoing rhetorical peregrinations serve to sensitize you to ways to cast spells, tell stories, and create relationships in the performance of any trick. There appears to be a conspicuous trend taking hold, thanks to the leadership and works of magicians such as Eugene Burger, Tommy Wonder, Robert Neale, Barrie Richardson, Punx, Peter Samelson, Rene Levand, Juan Tamariz, Arturo Ascanio, Ariel Frailich, Terry LaGerould, and others… Let me close with another observation and a tease. Years ago when I was enthralled with learning every Four-Ace Assembly extant, I stumbled across these upsetting words by Henning Nelms: "Consider the well-known Four Ace Trick for example. The Aces are dealt onto a table. Three indifferent cards are placed on each Ace. A pile is chosen by a spectator. When it is turned over, it is found to contain all four Aces and the other piles are shown to consist of indifferent cards. The audience may be amazed, but the trick makes little impression because it has no significance. If you could perform real magic, even very minor magic, would you waste it on an effect like this? [my italics]" Helms went on to add: "Interest depends entirely on meaning. The degree of interest that spectators take in any performance is in direct proportion to its meaning for them." [my italics] His words did not dampen my enthusiasm for Four-Ace Assemblies, but they made me restrict my performances to magicians and fast company. Besides, because the layouts required cards to be tabled, there was always a visibility problem. The trick was suited for a small audience, seated or standing around a table. Enter Ace-Cardman, John Guastaferro. He has breathed new life into this classic effect by working out an elegant version of the Four-Ace Assembly called "Vino Aces," which neatly solves many of the intrinsic drawbacks of performing this effect in a parlor setting. John does this by performing Mac MacDonald’s version, using four wine glasses. With each vanish/change, the magician toasts the spectator, who holds the "leader" glass. John writes: “While the idea of using wine glasses and cards is not new (see Hofzinser and Ricky Jay), this presentation of MacDonald’s Aces has many benefits, both for the performer and the audience. The presentation provides a wonderful setting and approach because it adds ‘sound’ (clinking), elegance/civility (wine glasses, toasting), visibility and audience interaction. The use of wine glasses allows the audience to enjoy the effect from nearly any position in the room, making it ideal for parlor conditions. Other Ace Assemblies would not work in this setting since spectators must be positioned to look down at the table. Additionally, there is an all-important ‘hands-off’ quality to this effect. “

"The wine glasses take on a very captivating role here. What is suggested is that the ‘magic’ is occurring because of the glasses and the toasts. This is interesting because it is the cards that magically travel and the glasses that remain stationary. In the end, since the cards can be seen through the glasses, the wine glasses and the cards work in visual unity." John’s routine is mentioned here to establish his approach and to illustrate another example of how to personally interpret and humanize tricks, even if they are classic plots that have been improved and varied to a fare-thee-well. John plans to publish his routine soon. So, watch for it. Let me close by reminding readers of Ricky Jay’s famous rendition of McDonald’s Aces. He personalized the feat by making the presentation retrospective and quaint, applying patter (almost verbatim) taken from Expert at the Card Table (Erdnase)—namely the

page 18

The Artful Ledger words from "The Exclusive Coterie" with lines such as:

"…how futile are the efforts of plebians to break into that select circle of society known as the Beau-monde, and especially how such entrée is prevented by the polite but frigid exclusiveness of its gentler members…as you have seen, I have brutally taken advantage of these unprotected and tenderly nurtured creatures by placing them in circumstances that must be extremely galling to their aristocratic sensibilities…" It may also be fitting to close this ramble with the last line by Erdnase:

"In all card entertainments the more palaver the more the interest is excited, and the address and patter of the performer will count as much if not more than his skill in manipulation."

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Side-bar: Although e-mail and the exchange of video-clips via the Internet are now commonplace, magicians still "session" vis-à-vis and brain-storm. This kind of cerebral synergism often results in entire books. I’ve already mentioned John Bannon’s Dear Mr. Fantasy, which is an example of how one creator is inspired to explore tangents growing out of sessions and devising solutions on his own. I remember the high degree of stimulation I felt when sitting around a table with Ed Marlo, Simon Aronson, Dave Solomon, and John Bannon, five decks or more in play, and five mind-styles attacking a card problem. Although I may have teased readers enough by not providing Guastaferro’s detailed method in these pages, I will share some of the personal comments I made to John as I responded to his work-in-progress. This, in part, shows how a duo-logue can proceed:

"Getting the Aces into play and setting the stage in almost every Ace Assembly is always a challenge. The actions, although necessary, are not interesting. There is also the irresistible temptation to "prove" that the Aces are normal. The canceling-out impulse is difficult to suppress. The argument goes something like this: ‘If I subliminally or overtly show both sides of the Aces a few times, this ‘impression’ will register and later on the suspicion that the Aces might be gimmicked or faked in some way will not be aroused.’”

Onward…

"I like your lead-in, but it has a different kind of purity that doesn’t seem to emotionally blend together as well as I’d like. The tone of each part seems different and a manipulative aura. Everything occurs in the hands. Perhaps it’s the fact that indeed the aesthetics are different? I’ll have to meditate on this a bit longer.” "I’d prefer to show four wine glasses, four Aces, and twelve indifferent cards at the outset rather than generating everything (except the glasses) from a shuffled deck in play. The quicker one can get into the primary effect, the better. Once the spectators see the wine glasses, which will be more interesting than the playing cards, they are eager to see what you are going to do with the glasses, not the cards. I find this interesting because it is the cards that magically travel and the glasses remain stationary. What is suggested is that the "magic" is occurring because of the glasses and the toasts. On a more subtle level (layer?), wine glasses are transparent and glisten. Cards are opaque.” "Aces, although they have a high or low value in gaming, are not very interesting to look at. The solitary pip in the center of a field of whiteness may be stark, but it is not as beautiful and intricate as a court card. One looks like a bulls-eye; the other, a stained-glass window. Therefore, I would use Queens or Kings. The indifferent cards, for contrast, would be low-value spot cards of the same color, probably black."

page 19

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Reflection AÓMental ReflectionÓ is revealed but its mystery remains hidden

Dean Dill Perception The performer removes two decks of cards, one red backed and one blue backed, from a card box. The spectator is given a choice of either of the two decks. One deck is set aside. The spectator deals cards face up from the other deck. The spectator is told that they can stop whenever they like. When they do stop, a prediction the performer made before the trick began is shown to be the "reflection" of the card they stop at.

Deception I wish you could see this performed before you read the explanation. It plays big. You would be convinced of the freedom of your choice and equally convinced that your supposedly free choice was known before you made it. The trick consists of four outs. One of the decks is stacked so that it becomes very likely that the spectator will stop on a card matching one of those outs. All four outs have been cleverly prearranged among the props at hand so that it appears that each one is the sole prediction of the outcome. The Setup You will need: • A red-backed deck of playing cards. • A matching blue-backed deck of playing cards. • A card box capable of holding two decks of cards side-by-side. Dean uses a wooden box, decorated with red and black playing card pips. He commented that this was perhaps too magical looking. The one illustrated in the photos is perhaps too plain (Fig. 1). It should look special, but not like a typical magic prop. The red deck is setup as follows from the top of the deck: 1. A bank of any ten cards 2. A joker 3. The Ace of Hearts 4. An indifferent card 5. The King of Hearts 6. An indifferent card 7. The Three of Spades 8. An indifferent card 9. The Seven of Clubs

page 20

Fig. 1

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005 The blue deck is setup with its King of Hearts on top and its Seven of Clubs on the bottom. The blue backed Ace of Hearts is positioned reversed in the center of this deck. The blue backed Three of Spades is placed face down on the left hand side of the card box. Case the blue backed deck with its three predictions and place it on top of the Three of Spades in the card box. Case the red backed deck and place it on the right side of the card box. Close the card box and you’re ready to perform. Note: Throughout the description of this trick, “Card BOX” refers to the box containing both decks. The cardboard box that holds an entire deck is referred to as the “Card CASE.” The Procedure Bring out the card box. Open it and remove first the red deck and then the blue deck. As you remove the second deck, close the box so the additional card hidden there is not seen by the spectator. Set the card box off to one side, but not so far away that it is out of the performing area. You offer the spectator a choice of either deck, but it is the magician’s choice since the red deck will be used to make the selection. If the blue backed deck is chosen, have the spectator place it on the card box. If the red backed deck is chosen, you pick up the blue backed deck and place it on the card box. In either case, you proceed by taking the red deck from its case. Spread it face up on the table and comment that the cards are normal. Gather the deck up and hand it to the spectator. Have them hold it face down. Instruct the spectator to deal cards slowly, one at a time, face up onto the table from the top of the deck. The pace of the deal is critical to the success of the trick. You want the pace of the deal to be slow enough that it feels much longer to the spectator and they will stop much sooner in the deal then they might otherwise. This insures that the spectator will stop somewhere within your setup, though at this point, you haven’t said anything about stopping the deal. Do not tell the spectator that they are to stop at a card. Instead, just tell them to deal cards. After they have dealt eight cards, tell them they can stop whenever they wish. The spectator will not stop immediately, but will continue to deal. Once you see the Joker, you will know that the spectator is entering your setup. Dean feels that the spectator will stop at the Ace of Hearts seventy-five percent of the time, assuming they are dealing slowly enough. Assuming the spectator stops within your stack (and the alternative is briefly discussed later), they will either end with one of your target cards face up on the table or with a target card face down on top of the deck. In either case, you control the action. Confirm that they want to stop where they are, but don’t overplay it. If they’ve stopped in your stack, you want them to stay there. If the selected card is face up, you will set it aside and position it as described in the section that follows. If the selected card is still face down on the spectator’s packet, have them set it aside face down without looking at it while you assemble the deck. The story line for each revelation is roughly the same. For each, you ask the spectator if they know what a "mental reflection" is. You then show that the reflection is the mirror image of their selected card. The procedure for each of the four target cards is described in the next section. Revealing the “Reflection” for each possible outcome

1. The Ace of Hearts Assemble the red backed deck so it is face down. Insert the Ace of Hearts face up into the center of the face down deck. Spread the deck face down across the table. Carefully position the spread so that the Ace shows exactly in the center of the spread with an equal portion of cards on either side of it. Remove the blue deck from its case and spread it parallel to the red deck so that its Ace of Hearts lines up exactly with the one in the red deck (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

page 21

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005 2. The Seven of Clubs Assemble the red backed deck so it is face down and place the Seven of Clubs on the bottom of the deck. Turn the deck face up and place it on the table in front of the spectator. Remove the blue backed deck from its case and hold it face down above the face up red deck for a moment (Fig. 3). Turn the blue backed deck face up to reveal the matching Seven of Clubs and place it beside the red backed deck (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4

Fig. 3

3. The King of Hearts Assemble the red backed deck so it is face down and place it face down in front of the spectator. Place the King of Hearts face up on the deck, but leave it slightly angled. Remove the blue backed deck from its case and place it alongside the red deck. Then turn the top card face up and place it back on its deck so it is angled the same as the card on top of the red backed deck (Fig. 5, showing how both cards are angled). 4. The Three of Spades Assemble the red backed deck and place it aside. Take the card box and open it to Fig. 5 show the face down blue backed card inside. Take the red backed Three of Spades and place it face down on the other side of the card box (Fig. 6). Lift the card box in your hands (Fig. 7). Close the card box and tip it so its bottom is facing out (Fig. 8). You should be able to open it bottom first while tipping the box back into position to show the face of both of the Three of Spades simultaneously to the spectator (As pictured in Fig. 9).

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

What if they don’t stop in the desired bank of cards? Well, you need to ad-lib a bit. The trick won’t be as strong, but can still be brought to a successful conclusion. All it takes is contriving to bring the spectator back into your stack. If they’ve stopped at a number card and haven’t gone too far past your stack, have them use the value to count back into your stack. If they’ve gone quite a ways past, have them cut the tabled packet in half and cover each with a hand. Have them lift one hand up. Use the packet that has your stack (magician’s choice again). Have them count according to the face card or have them cut again. Maybe they’ll cut at one of your target cards. Maybe not, but you get the idea. You need to get them back into your stack and have them select one of your target cards.

page 22

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005 Attention to detail The denouement is really about the staging. Dean carefully positions the cards, decks, and card box for each selection to stress the theme of "Reflection." It’s the unifying theme across all of the possible selections and the symmetry involved in each of the displays that really sells the supposed singularity of the prediction.

The ANTINOMY Perspective One of the great things about doing this magazine is the opportunity it has brought me to interact with some of my idols in magic. Meeting Dean Dill was a great experience and he has been very supportive of my venture into magic publishing. Some of his comments have been downright embarrassing, but I try to accept them. My thanks go to him for contributing a trick and also to Marty Kaplan for the original write-up of this effect supplied to me by Dean. It helped a great deal having everything about the trick already in writing. I should mention that Dean originally had a fifth out for this trick. But his performances of it over a ten year period proved to him that it was really unnecessary. He never used it. All that is required to limit the choice to one of your four outs is to control the spectator’s pace of dealing by your words and calmness of action. Seeing Dean perform this several times, I would say that the big secret of the trick is this: Be unconcerned with its outcome and the outcome will be of no concern. Sounds “heavy,” but I think it’s true.

Touchstones and Crossroads While the idea of having more than one out serve as a supposed single prediction seems to be a common idea in magic, it’s pretty amazing how many old card books you can go through and not find it used. It seems oftentimes its use in card magic begins and ends with a double faced card in an envelope. I remember buying a “triple out” prediction trick as a teenager. This trick has a spectator choose from a red, yellow, or blue card before the prediction is revealed. I’ve learned this trick is still on the market and called “Mind Control,” though its creator’s name has eluded me. Jay Sankey took this idea and created a five out version. Dean Dill himself explores similar territory on his Extreme Dean DVDs. It seems the use of the dealing process to reach a target card in combination with the “multiple out prediction” is even rarer. S. Leo Horowitz – “A Psychological Discovery,” Greater Magic, 1938. Written by John Northern Hilliard This trick uses the dealing procedure to arrive at one of eight target cards that have an indifferent card between them, though the nature of the trick is very different from Dean’s. Jay Sankey – “Sankey’s Choice,” The Very Best of Jay Sankey, Vol. 2, DVD, 2002. He comments that he “never liked the pen.”

Discussing the merits of “The Double Agent”

Gene Taylor, Dean Dill, and Rick Merrill

page 23

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Hotel Bills A dollar disappears and it just might pay your way...

Norman Beck Perception While on the road, the magician recites an old mathematical puzzle to a hotel clerk. He illustrates the puzzle with real money and causes one dollar to vanish both mentally and physically.

Deception You will need a set of bills with one gimmicked bill as follows: • 1 ten dollar bill • 2 five dollar bills • 1 five dollar bill that has a one dollar bill glued to its opposite side • 4 one dollar bills

Fig. 1

Set the bills in this order from the top down: $10, $5, $5, $5/$1 gimmicked bill, $1, $1, $1, $1 Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 show the setup. Both sides of the gimmicked bill are shown in the center position. Fold the bill set so the $10 bill is uppermost and place the group of bills in your pocket. You approach the hotel clerk and tell the following familiar story using the group of bills. You explain how you and two friends checked into a hotel one night. The room rate was $30 (it was some time ago!). Count out $30 using your bills as follows:

Fig. 2

Take the Ten and turn it over as you set it to the counter (Fig. 3, next page, shows the starting position before turning the bill over to the counter). Do this as you say, "That’s $10…" Push over the next two Five’s (Fig. 4, next page), square them up, and turn them over, placing them onto the Ten on the counter (Fig. 5, next page). Continue explaining the count with, "…plus $10 more is $20…" Push over the next Five and the One dollar bill beneath it (Fig. 6, next page). As you prepare to turn over these two bills, you square them up and secretly leave the One dollar bill on the bill packet in your left hand. As you turn over the Five, a One will show (Fig. 7, next page). You count this as "… plus $6," since you are supposedly laying both the Five and the One down.

page 24

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

You continue the story by explaining that, later, the desk clerk realized that the correct room rate was really only $25 (it was even longer ago than you thought!), so the desk clerk gives $5 to a bellman to return to the three of you. Pick up all five One dollar bills that are on the counter, one at a time with your right hand and place them into your left hand. The last of these will be the gimmicked Five (Fig. 9).

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

You explain that, “Since you’re unable to split $5 three ways evenly, you each took $1 and gave $2 to the bellman as a tip.” Count three One dollar bills to the counter, starting with the gimmicked bill, and pocket the remaining two One dollar bills (Fig. 10). The three One dollar bills can be counted into a separate pile as shown in Fig. 10, but if you do, place them on top of the other stack of bills prior to proceeding with the next step.

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

Fig. 3

Then lay down the remaining One dollar bills, turning each over onto the stack on the counter, concluding with "7, 8, 9, and 10. That’s $30 total." The finished pile is shown in Fig. 8.

page 25

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005 You continue your story: "Since we each got a dollar back, that meant we each paid $9. Nine times Three is Twenty-Seven. The bellman kept $2 and that’s Twenty-Nine. What happened to the other dollar?" As you say this, you pick up the bills on the counter, turn the stack over, and count them to the counter again. They will add up to $27. Then you pull the two One dollar bills back out of your pocket (Fig. 11, previous page), punctuating the "$2 and that’s Twenty-Nine" line. Norman then pockets the bills and proceeds to emphasize what just happened by writing out the (supposed) math on a notepad like this:

10 - 1 = 9 10 - 1 = 9 10 - 1 = 9 -----30 27 Bellman 2 Total 29.00

Where is the other dollar? If you’re not familiar with this puzzle… Three times Nine is 27, but that $27 contains the two dollars the bellman was tipped. Yes, they paid $27, but this includes the $2 tip, since they also paid for that. If you subtract $2 from $27, you get $25, which is the actual rate paid. Add the $5 refunded ($3 to the guests and $2 to the bellman) and you get the original $30. Isn’t math fun?

The ANTINOMY Perspective When Norman first submitted this to me, it sounded strangely familiar. I had thought I had read of the puzzle being presented as a magic trick with gaffed bills before. I thought it was the kind of thing that might have appeared in one of Bob Farmer’s columns. I asked him and he didn’t remember it. He said "Ask Max Maven." I did, and while he helped come up with some related references, he didn’t come up with the specific trick. I have been unable to track down a source for that remembrance and I have grown to believe it is a false memory. Norman travels quite a bit and actually performs this trick for real hotel desk clerks. He swears it oftentimes gets him a free room upgrade. I believe him.

Touchstones and Crossroads Given the “off the beaten path” aspect of this trick, a direct precedent is a bit hard to come by. These references explore similar territory in two areas: Either they are magic tricks based on mathematical puzzles or they are tricks that use a gaffed set of bills. I should mention that Max Maven also credits an additional routine from Paul Curry and the work of Stewart James in the area of mathematical puzzles turned into magic. Paul Curry – “The Case of the Missing Hat,” Paul Curry’s Worlds Beyond, 2001. Written by Paul Curry This effect uses a double-faced card (a magician on one side and a hat on the other) that matches others to illustrate a mystery. Maurice Fogel – “Border-Line Case,” Maurice Fogel Gives Himself Away (lecture notes), 1978. Written by Maurice Fogel This effect uses colored pieces of paper in place of money to illustrate a mathematical puzzle. George Starke – “Hornswaggled,” Hugard’s Magic Monthly, Vol. 2, No. 7, Dec. 1944. Bert Allerton – “Bamboozle,” Stars of Magic, Series 3, No. 2, 1947. Edited by George Starke Larry West – “Passing the Buck,” Linking Ring, Aug. 1980. Harry Riser – “Hornswaggled Revisited,” Feints and Temps of Harry Riser, 1996. Written by Ed Brown Michael Close – “A Visit From Rocco,” Workers Number Three, 1993. Written by Michael Close

page 26

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

100% Confidence Is it over-confidence if it turns out right?

Jack Parker Perception Three cards are selected and then three indicator cards are chosen by the magician. The magician states that he is "100% confident" that the first selection, when combined with the three indicators, will make up a Four of a Kind. This is shown to be true. Of course, the magician is also "100% confident" that the second selection will form a Four of a Kind with his three indicators. This is also true. The nature of the confidence changes for the final card as the indicators change to magically combine with the final selection to create a Royal Flush.

Deception You will need a deck of cards set up from the top down with the following nine card sequence: AS, JS, 10C, JD, JC, QC, KC, AC, and the AH. For ease in remembering which cards are in the setup, these are the five cards of a Royal Flush in Clubs, the two major suited Aces (Spades and Hearts), and the Jacks of Diamonds and Spades. The first step is to force the top three cards (AS, JS, and 10C) as the selections. There are many ways to go. Perhaps the most straightforward for this circumstance is a riffle force. Perform a straight cut of the cards, positioning the force cards in the middle, while retaining a left pinky break above them. Riffle force to the target cards and then thumb off all three cards in a horizontal row in front of you. You now say you will select three indicator cards. How you orchestrate this is up to you in terms of whether you reassemble the deck and then cut at the break again. But the cards taken are from the top stock. First, spread the top group of cards and obtain a break beneath the sixth card from the top. Spreading in two groups of three is an easy way to determine the sixth card. Square up and retain the break. Then, take the top card (JD) in right hand Biddle Grip, then take the next card (JC) side-jogged to the left beneath it. The third card (QC) is side-jogged further to the left beneath the other two (Fig. 1). Square these cards against the deck and add on the remaining cards above your break as you do so (Fig. 2). Continue to hold the six card packet in Biddle Grip, shielding the thickness of the packet with your right fingers. You perform this sequence as the spectator’s examine their three selections. Place the deck behind the row of three selections. Take the packet into deep left hand Dealer’s Grip, shielding the thickness with the first finger of the left hand at the outer end of the packet. You are now set to begin the first "Four of a Kind" revelation sequence.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

page 27

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005 "Four of a Kind" sequence #1 Take the first selection, the Ace of Spades, and drop it face up on top of the face down packet (In progress, Fig. 3, previous page). Immediately turn the packet over and Elmsley Count, outjogging the face down card when you come to it (Sequence shown Fig. 4 Fig. 7). This apparently shows three face up Aces, with one face down, and is John Bannon’s "Discrepancy City Display."

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Three as Four Display Strip out the face down card, turn it over, and drop it face up onto the other cards. Flip the entire packet face down. Perform a modified Ascanio Spread (based on a Paul Harris display) by pulling out the bottom card with your left fingers as you pull the remainder of the packet diagonally to the right and towards you (Fig. 8). Your right fingers hold this packet in a Biddle style grip with the right second finger at the outer right edge of the packet and the right thumb at the inner right edge. When it has moved half-way across the bottom card, the left thumb contacts the top card and holds it in place. Move the remaining packet straight outward from the other cards, outjogging it further than both (Fig. 9). The left fingers contact the bottom card of this packet and retain it as the final packet is

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

moved down and to the right. The outer edge of this packet is aligned with the first card taken during this display (Fig. 10). The fingers of the right hand are taken away. The face of the bottom most card is shielded by the left fingers as the left hand turns over Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 12 briefly to display the Aces (Fig. 11). The entire sequence is done at a fairly rapid pace. You arrange the cards, then briefly display their faces. Turn this group of cards back down and return your right hand to the last packet moved. Pull out this packet and then reverse count the other cards onto it. The last card, the Ace of Spades, if flipped face up onto the other spread cards and held in place briefly by the right first finger (Fig. 12). From the spread position, obtain a break under the top two cards as you square up the cards into the

page 28

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005 left hand. Pick up the Ace of Spades and the card below it and deposit both of these on the deck (Fig. 13). Finally, turn over the Ace of Spades face down onto the deck (Fig. 14). "Four of a Kind" sequence #2 Reverse count two of the remaining cards into your left hand using your left thumb. Keep the last group of three cards as one and place it on top of the packet. This reinforces your only having three cards. You now proceed with the same sequence to show the next selection as "Four of a Kind." So, pick up the second card, the Jack of Spades. Drop it face up on top of the packet. Turn the packet over. Elmsley count, outjogging the face down card. Strip this card out and place it face up onto the packet. Turn over the packet and proceed with the "Three as Four Display" previously described. Again, pull out the last packet, just as for the first sequence, and reverse count the other cards onto it. Flip over the last card, the Jack of Spades, face up onto the spread and retain it briefly with the right first finger. Again obtain a break under the top two cards and deposit the Jack of Spades and the card beneath it on top of the deck. To conclude this sequence, turn the Jack of Spades face down on the deck. The Royal Flush Finale Things take a surprising turn at the conclusion. To show your three indicator cards, pull off the first with your left thumb. Then take the bottom card from the packet with your left fingers and leave it side-jogged to the right on the first card. Rub these two cards together while your right hand flexes its two as one card. Place the two cards in the left hand onto those in the right. This display has placed the clubs of the Royal Flush into the right order for the final display. Take the last card, the Ten of Clubs and place it face up onto the packet. But this time, instead of the Elmsley, say that you’re 100% Confident that the Ten will give a pretty good Poker hand. Deal it face up to the table. Deal the remaining four cards in stud fashion from the packet and show the other cards of the Royal Flush, in order (Fig. 15).

The ANTINOMY Perspective

Fig. 15

As may be obvious from much of this magazine, I love card magic. That passion for card magic led me to join an internet site called The Second Deal (www.theseconddeal.com, not just anyone can join but you can read the rules there). For whatever reason, largely related to time, I let my membership lapse for a couple of years, after having signed on originally fairly early in the site’s existence. Well, last year I renewed my membership. When I returned to the fold, Jack Parker’s magic had found it’s way into the “Magic” section there. This trick was one of the video entries and it is also featured in his electronic publication Set To Stun (available online at www.underground-collective.com). That makes it “something old.” For “something new,” you need look no further than the next trick.

Touchstones and Crossroads Jack’s direct starting point for this routine is the David Solomon routine mentioned below. Jack added the Royal Flush ending and some additional displays. Others have pointed out the similarity to the Hamman routine credited. David Solomon – “Three Indicators,” Solomon’s Mind, 1997. Written by Eugene Burger. The routine originally appeared in MAGIC Magazine, Feb. 1993. Brother John Hamman – “The Magic Cards,” The Secrets of Brother John Hamman, 1989. Written by Richard Kaufman John Bannon – “Discrepancy City Prediction (the ‘Discrepancy City Display’),” Impossibilia, 1990. Written by John Bannon Paul Harris – “Re-Set (the ‘Ascanio Spread Display’),” The Art of Astonishment Book I, 1996. Written by Paul Harris, additional writing by Eric Mead. This write-up credit’s the three for four display after the Ascanio Spread to “Free-lunch afficionado Ricardo Wecksler.” Interestingly, this specific handling is not in the original write-up in Super Magic (1977).

page 29

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Friction Aces A couple of Aces get a little worked up

Jack Parker Perception After a selected card is lost in the deck, the magician removes the four aces. Each of the four aces is shown to have a different magical ability. At the conclusion, two of the Aces find the selected card and in the process become over-heated, with their blue backs changing to red.

Deception You will need: • A blue backed deck with the Ace of Hearts and the Ace of Diamonds removed • A red backed Ace of Hearts and a red backed Ace of Diamonds Set up the blue deck so that the four aces, two blue backed and two red backed, are distributed from the face of the deck in Club, Heart, Diamond, and Spade order. The cards should be inserted within the first third of the face up deck. To begin the trick, spread the deck face down and have a card selected from among the first two-thirds of the deck. This assures both that the selection will not be an ace and also keeps the red backed aces from being prematurely revealed. Ask the spectator to remember the card and swing cut the top portion of the deck into your left hand. Have the card returned to the top of this section and place the remaining block of cards from your right hand on top of it while retaining a left pinky break between the sections. Control the card back to the top using a pass or double-undercut. A double-undercut might be preferable since it shows more blue backs, but regardless of the control used, the goal is to return the deck to its original order with the selected card now on top. Explain to the spectator that the four aces each have a magical ability as you flip the deck face up. Obtain a break above the bottom card (the selection) using a pinky pulldown or buckle technique. Spread the deck and outjog each of the four aces. Remove the four aces and add the selected card beneath them using the Vernon Strip Out addition (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Set the packet down face up on the table and ribbon spread the deck face down behind it (Fig. 3).

page 30

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Pick up the ace packet and display them using a Stencil type display, showing each ace cleanly while retaining the last two cards squared as one (Fig. 4, previous page). Square the face up cards and take them into right hand Biddle grip. Casually perform a

Fig. 5

Fig. 9

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

Fig. 12

Flushtration Count to show that each card has a blue back. As you take the cards into your left hand, place them into a fan. The last double-card goes at the right hand side of this fan (Flushtration count and building the fan shown Fig. 5 - Fig. 7). The Ace of Spades is the first to show its power. Take the double card, pinching it along its right hand side with your thumb on top and fingers below it. Square up the other three cards in your left hand and use the double card to flip them face down (Fig. 8). Place this double face down on top of the packet as you point to the table top (Fig. 9), explaining that you will put the Ace of Spades "here." Take the face down, top card of the packet and set it on the spot you’ve pointed at. This procedure offers justification for putting the Ace on the packet at all. Place the packet on top of this card (supposedly the Ace of Spades), make a magical gesture and then turn the top card of the packet over, showing that the Ace of Spades has magically traveled up through the other cards. Turn the Ace of Spades face down and use it to scoop up the packet. In a continuing motion, take the entire packet and flip it face up into your left hand. The Ace of Spades will be the face card of this packet. You now demonstrate the power of the Ace of Hearts. Obtain a break above the bottom two cards of the packet. Lift off the cards above this break (In progress Fig. 10), retaining the remaining two cards in the left hand as the Ace of Hearts. Place the cards from the right hand beneath the cards in the left hand, but injog them for half their length (Fig. 11). Take the outjogged "Ace of Hearts" (really two cards) and turn the two cards face down in a Stud Turnover style. Place the cards back onto the others so they are still outjogged (Fig. 12). Remove the Ace of Diamonds from beneath the injogged packet and place it face up onto the top of the other cards, lined up with the Ace of Spades (Fig. 13). This leaves the supposed Ace of Hearts outjogged between the other aces.

Fig. 13

page 31

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Rotate your left hand palm down to display the Ace of Hearts. Tap the end of this card with the right fingers (Fig. 14). As your left hand turns back palm up (and the cards turn over again), you execute a Push-In Change by using the fingers of the right hand to push the Ace of Hearts flush with the other cards. The right thumb pulls out the top card of the protruding double and then snaps its end. This is the visible action and it appears you have just pulled this card out slightly. Explain that the Ace of Hearts has the power to change to the Ace of Clubs instantly. This is also a demonstration of the power that the Ace of Clubs has as well. Pull the face down card out from the Fig. 14 others rapidly so that its end clicks off the other Aces (In progress Fig. 15) and then slowly turn it over to reveal it is now the Ace of Clubs (Fig. 16). Drop this card face up onto the others. Turn the entire packet over and perform an Elmsley count to show four blue backs. As you do this, comment that you have shown the powers for the Spades, Hearts, and

Fig. 15

Fig. 16

Fig. 17

Fig. 18

Clubs, and there is just Diamonds left. Flip the entire packet face up and obtain a break beneath the top two cards. Lift these two cards at opposite corners in preparation for Marc DeSouza’s "Shapeshifter Change" (Fig. 17). Execute the change to show that the Ace of Diamonds has changed into the Ace of Hearts. Place the double side-jogged onto the packet and clamp it in position with your left thumb (Fig. 18). Retake the card along the middle of its right-hand side with your right thumb on top and right fingers below. Flip over the remaining three cards with your left thumb and spread them into a fan. Tap the Ace of Hearts with the fan while commenting on how much the Ace of Diamonds looks like the Ace of Hearts (Fig. 19). Square the fan back into the left hand and drop the double face up on top. You justify this placement by gesturing at the ribbon spread of cards on the table, running your right index finger along the table behind it. As you do this and the following sequence, you summarize that you’ve shown the ability of each Ace, but still have to find the selected card. Return to the packet with the right hand and lift off just the top Ace, the Ace of Hearts. As you do this, you turn over the remaining packet with your left thumb. This action happens underneath, or behind, the cover of the Ace of Hearts so that the red back beneath the Ace of Hearts is not seen.

Fig. 19

page 32

Fig. 20

Fig. 21

Fig. 22

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005 Place the Ace of Hearts face up on the other face up aces and square up. Prepare as you would to perform an Elmsley count of the Aces into the left hand. Pinch the right hand side of the packet and pull the first Ace, the Ace of Hearts into the left hand. Peel the next Ace, the Ace of Spades onto the first Ace, but injog it by about an inch. Instead of taking the next card, perform a block push off of the two cards above the bottom one and place these injogged onto the Ace of Spades by an inch. You’re creating a vertical spread of the Aces. The last Ace, the Ace of Diamonds, is left injogged on the Ace of Clubs (Vertical spread completed Fig. 20, previous page). Under the guise of repositioning the cards, you will secretly realign the selected card. Grip the outer end of the Ace of Hearts and pull it out slightly. Then, position your right Fig. 23 Fig. 24 Fig. 25 fingers on the inner end of the vertical spread as shown in Fig. 21, previous page. Your right third finger is butted against the end of the Ace of Diamonds. Your right first and second fingers contact the back of the selected card hidden under the Ace of Clubs. Using these fingers, slide the selected card back under the Ace of Diamonds until it hits your third finger. Continue to pull these two cards back slightly, pretending to readjust the Ace of Diamonds. Pull out the Ace of Clubs from the spread and drop it to the table, followed by the Ace of Spades. This leaves you with the Ace of Hearts and the Ace of Diamonds (really a double) in your left hand. Pinch the double card at its right side with your right hand fingers and grip the remaining ace similarly with your other hand. Flick the cards together to stress their singularity and then put the Ace of Hearts on top of the Ace of Diamonds. Place these cards into right hand Biddle Grip and perform a two card Flushstration display to show both as blue backed cards. This sandwiches the selected card between the two red Aces. Place the supposed two card packet face up onto your right palm (Fig. 22, previous page), aligned as they would be if you were placing them into classic palm position. Place your left palm on top of the cards (Fig. 23). By rubbing your hands together briskly, while keeping them horizontal to the table, you will find that the selected card will naturally appear at your fingertips (Fig. 24). For me, this seems to work best if the right hand does most of the moving. A bit of experimentation will reveal the right technique. All that remains now is to explain that perhaps you rubbed too hard as the friction has heated up the aces. Slowly turn over each red Ace to reveal the change (Fig. 25 in red backed Squeezers).

The ANTINOMY Perspective Perhaps the thing I most enjoy about Jack’s work is his attention to detail, both in constructing the routines and in how they are staged. Perhaps it’s most obvious in his video records of his tricks, but every moment is “framed” for maximum impact and understanding from the spectator’s point of view.

A couple of thoughts on alternative sequences: For the two card Flushtration sequence, consider using the Paul Harris technique as follows: With the three card packet (supposedly two cards) in a high dealing position in the left hand, instead of lifting the cards into right hand Biddle Grip to display the back and begin a Flushtration count, turn the left hand over first to flash the back of the packet. Then return it dealing position and take it into

page 33

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005 right hand Biddle Grip. As soon as the grip is achieved, move into the standard Flushtration move by pulling the top card of the packet into the left hand and showing the back of the packet again with the right hand. This “left hand” then “right hand” display is more disarming than the standard Flushtration count for a two card sequence. I became aware of this sequence in a trick called “Steppin’ Out with Molly” in Jack Carpenter’s The Expert’s Portfolio No. 1 (1997), but am not sure of its original source. For the final revelation of the selected card, you can consider placing the red Aces into the spectator’s hands and have them do the rubbing action. R. Paul Wilson originally described the technique in this context as a way for a spectator to reveal a card in a sandwich effect. The only downside is that the card could popout at the fingertips, or towards the wrist, depending on how they rub. It’s also possible it won’t pop out at all. But, letting them reveal the changed condition of the backs is potentially stronger and perhaps worth the risk.

Touchstones and Crossroads Jack credits his “fondness” for The Complete Walton books in creating this routine. In particular, a fondness for what are, essentially, packet tricks where the cards start in the deck. R. Paul Wilson – Friction Production, Esoterica File. As mentioned, Mr. Wilson mentions this for use in the context of a Sandwich routine to cause a selected card to appear between the spectator’s hands. I also saw Mr. Wilson demonstrate this technique at a lecture. Marc DeSouza – “The Shapeshifter Change,” The Trapdoor, Issue #48, 1995. Written by Steve Beam. It should be noted that Marc credits “The Pirouette Change” by Oscar Munoz as his direct inspiration. In fact, “The Pirouette Change” appeared in the same issue of The Trapdoor. Dai Vernon – “Vernon Strip Out Addition,” Ten Card Problems, 1932. Written by Dai Vernon Brother John Hamman – “Brother Hamman’s Final Twist (the ‘Flushtration Count’),” The Secrets of Brother John Hamman, 1989. Written by Richard Kaufman. Mr. Kaufman mentions that this count was originally used in a packet trick of the same name created by Brother John Hamman and marketed by DeVoe’s Magic Den in the 1960’s. He also points out that it is a small packet version of Ed Marlo’s “In Lieu of the Hindoo Shuffle,” which was published in Ibidem, No. 15, 1958. As the name of the Marlo creation implies, it is based on the old ploy using the Hindu Shuffle. Using the Hindu Shuffle to display apparent duplicate cards was published in a trick called “Nomolos” and credited to Harris Solomon in The Jinx, No. 44, May 1938. While the small packet technique has become known as “The Flushtration Count” and Brother John Hamman is generally credited with the technique, the small packet technique was first published in a trick called “Color Blind” in Ibidem No. 1, 1955. The creator of this effect was Norman Houghton.

page 34

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Celebrity Search A Game Show and a meeting of the minds all in one

Jack T. Koopmans Perception The magician displays ten cards, each bearing the likeness of a famous celebrity. He deals them face down into a circle. A spectator examines a numbered list of the names of the celebrities and thinks of one. They also remember the number of the celebrity’s name. The magician explains that he will begin tapping cards with his finger. As he does so, the spectator is instructed to begin counting silently with the number they are thinking of. When they reach fifteen, they are told to yell "Stop!" When this takes place, the image of the celebrity on the card stopped at matches the name of the celebrity the spectator is thinking of.

Deception You will need a set of celebrity cards, blank on one side, with photos of the celebrities on the other. Jack suggests cutting photos out from an issue of People magazine. You will also need a numbered list of the celebrity names. The exact celebrity names do not matter as long as the list of names corresponds to the photos. For explanation purposes, the list that Jack uses is: 1. Eddie Murphy 2. Elizabeth Taylor 3. Jennifer Lopez 4. Oprah 5. Paul McCartney 6. Julia Roberts 7. David Letterman 8. Marilynn Monroe 9. Madonna 10. Elvis Presley Your list of celebrities can be in any order. In the photos that accompany this write-up, the names of the celebrities are on the cards. It should be understood that your set of cards should have the FACES of the celebrities on them, not the names. Once you have the numbered list and corresponding cards, you’re ready to setup for the trick. The list and cards are shown in Fig. 1. The photo cards are stacked in a known order based on your numbered list. Jack suggests a setup, but the order can be anything as long as it is known. If you choose to change the order, you will have to adjust the lay down and tapping sequences accordingly. I suggest just following Jack’s suggested orders for both. Fig. 1

page 35

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Based on the numbered list, put the photo cards in this order, starting from the top and placing the cards, literally, face down: 8, 9, 4, 5, 10, 7, 1, 3, 6, and 2. The final order is shown in Fig. 2. Proceed with the trick as described under "Perception." When you deal the cards into a face down circle, lay them out as shown in Fig. 3 - Fig. 6. That is, deal out 8, 9, and 4 across the top arc of the circle (Fig. 3). Follow this with the 5 and 10 along the left side of circle, but work from the bottom up, dealing the 5 and then the 10 (Fig. 4). Next, deal the 7 and 1 cards on the right side, but work down, laying the 7 below the 4, followed by the 1 (Fig. 5). Finally, lay down the 3, 6, and 2 cards, roughly from left to right, across the bottom of the circle (Fig. 6). This laydown sequence should appear somewhat random, but the point is you know the order of the cards around the circle. You will need to memorize the position of the cards as shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

After the spectator has memorized a celebrity name and its corresponding number, you begin tapping the cards. They begin counting mentally with their number. Your first five taps are truly random. You can touch any cards. But, starting with your sixth tap, you touch the card at position 10. Your next tap is on 9, then 8, then 7. You count down until the spectator says "Stop." The simple mathematics involved insure Fig. 6 that the card you stop on will bear the photo of the celebrity name the spectator is thinking of.

Fig. 2

Fig. 5

8

9 4 7

10

1

5 3

2 6

Fig. 7

Perhaps an example is in order. Say the spectator thinks of "David Letterman," number 7 on your list. They begin counting with 7. You tap five times. The spectator is counting to themselves during this, "7, 8, 9, 10, 11…" You now begin your countdown. You’re tapping 10, 9, 8, 7 while the spectator continues to count "12, 13, 14, 15… Stop!" As you see from the example, 15 is arrived at when you tap on card number 7. You’ve hidden the fact that the result would be the same as if you asked them "I’m going to start at 15. Say stop when I reach your number." In either case, they would stop you on the ninth card.

page 36

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The ANTINOMY Perspective Jack made several good points about this trick in his submission to me. It is a "right place, right time" trick. That would include the "right person." In order for the trick to work, they must be able to follow instructions and count correctly to themselves. It is also important to stress the mental aspect of the trick and down play the counting part of it. If you know any kind of deceptive false mix to do at the beginning of the trick, it might be a good idea to employ it. Finally, the count can be adjusted to your liking. You don’t have to end on 15. If you want to end on 17, you just have to increase your initial random tapping by two so that you tap 7 cards prior to beginning your countdown from the 10th card. However, choosing a higher number does not add to the effect, so you might be just as well off sticking with 15.

Touchstones and Crossroads Jack credits a Harry Blackstone trick that he originally saw in a small booklet handout as his direct inspiration for this approach. In the Blackstone trick, the M.O. was fairly obvious as the procedure has the magician counting backward on face-up cards that have their value showing, so the spectator sees the magician tapping on a 10, then a 9, 8, 7, etc. A reference for this trick is given below. Jack mentioned a trick by Al Baker where ten cards are dealt in a face down row. He recalls this being in the Encyclopedia of Card Tricks. While I found a related trick by Stewart Judah in this book, I did not find the Al Baker trick. He also credits a Ken Brooke marketed effect called “Clock-a-dacious” as well as a Clock trick published in “Magic with Cards” by Garcia and Schindler. Harry Blackstone (Walter B. Gibson?) – “The Ten Card Circle,” Blackstone’s Modern Card Tricks and Secrets of Magic, 1941. Harry Blackstone (Walter B. Gibson?) – “Improved Card Circle,” Blackstone’s Modern Card Tricks and Secrets of Magic, 1941. In this improved version, the cards are face down. John Scarne – “Scarne’s Tappit,” Scarne on Card Tricks, 1950. Written by John Scarne A similar procedure and instructions to the spectator. The tapping starts at 20 with 7 random taps, before proceeding onto known cards until the spectator says “Stop.” Stewart Judah – “The Circle of Cards,” Encyclopedia of Card Tricks, 1937. Revised and edited by Jean Hugard. Compiled by Wilhelm Von Deusen and Glenn Gravett. While variations of the Clock Effect and its related principle are scattered throughout the magic literature, two collections are noted: On the Clock Effect, 1971. Written by Jon Racherbaumer. Jon published an electronic update of this manuscript called Clockwork 2.0 in 2002. A World of Clocks, 1984. Written by Roy Johnson.

page 37

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Sobriety Test The answer is not what it seems in this neck of the woods

Matt Herbert Perception The magician explains how police in his area are now testing drivers who may have had a drink or two. He displays a Quarter and a Dime and says the police ask people which coin can hide behind the other? Of course, most people answer that the Dime can hide behind the Quarter. If they do, though, they won’t pass the test since the magician proceeds to demonstrate twice that the Quarter can hide behind the Dime.

Deception This is another trick I wish you could see first. I believe it would fool you the first time. The second time you see it, you might start to realize what’s going on. This was my experience. The first viewing was "Wait a minute…" and the second was "Is that..? It is!" This uses a coin move you may have learned at some point and now you can put it to good use. It’s a pretty quick routine with a good patter hook. So get yourself a Dime and a Quarter and let’s proceed. Display the Dime and the Quarter as shown in Fig. 1. The Quarter is clipped between the first and second fingertips of the left hand. The Dime is pinched by its edge between the right first finger and thumb. As you explain the premise of the trick, you move the Quarter behind the Dime a few times, lightly stroking the right thumb and Dime with the left thumb as you make these passes (Fig. 2 - Fig. 4). This shows clearly that the Quarter is not hidden when placed behind the Dime and also gets the audience used to the motion involved.

Fig. 2

page 38

Fig. 3

Fig. 1

Fig. 4

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Your explanation as you perform these actions begins something like this: “Have you heard about the new sobriety test the cops are giving when they pull someone over? They ask you ‘Which is bigger? A Quarter or a Dime?’ You continue to explain that you have to resist the obvious answer because the police will prove you wrong. You demonstrate this contradiction as you proceed to hide the Quarter behind the Dime, proving that it must be smaller than the Dime. The first disappearance of the Quarter takes place with the hands held out to your left side (Fig. 5). The palms of both hands face the audience. Repeat the motion of placing the Quarter behind the Dime, but this time, as the left hand moves downward, the Fig. 8 Quarter is moved from its clipped position into Down’s Palm (Fig. 6). You conclude the vanish sequence by repeating the same stroking of the Dime that you demonstrated prior to the vanish (Fig. 7 showing the coin gone). To emphasize this sequence, after passing the left thumb across the right thumb a couple of times, you briefly take the Dime by the right thumb and second finger (Fig. 8). Then you turn the Dime over a couple of times using the right hand fingers before re-taking it in the starting position with the right hand. It is, of course, possible to display the back of the Dime using the left hand by swinging the back of the hand around the front of the performer so it faces the audience. As long as you keep the coin parallel to the floor and more or less at the eye-level of the audience, it should remain hidden. This is a typical display sequence when using the Down’s Palm, but I don’t think it’s necessary here. Matt usually does not do this display, but I leave it to the performer to decide. You reproduce the Quarter by performing the same sequence backward. You dip the left hand fingers behind the Dime and during the brief moment they are hidden behind the fingers of the right hand, you clip the coin out from Down’s Palm between the left hand first and second fingers. Then quickly re-extend the fingers and produce the coin as if it came from behind the Dime. You move into the starting display position to perform a repeat. Here, the spectator looks down on what is, essentially, the same sequence. You perform the same vanish while again explaining the question and its expected answer. Performing the same sequence from a different angle strengthens both performances and is much better than performing it twice from the same viewpoint.

page 39

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

You conclude the routine, holding both the Dime and Quarter, by telling the audience that if they’re ever stopped and asked this question, they had better answer that the Dime can hide the Quarter.

Comments on the Down’s Palm A brief description of the Down’s Palm is in order in case you’re not familiar with it. The coin begins clipped between the first and second finger of the hand you will be palming it in. Under cover of motion, you bring these fingers and the coin towards the crotch of your thumb. The thumb lifts slightly to receive the coin. Once the coin is pushed into the fleshy area at the base of the thumb, the thumb comes back down and retains the coin in this position while the first and second finger return to the starting position. This sequence is shown in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. An exposed view showing where the coin is palmed is shown in Fig. 11.

Fig. 10

Fig. 9

Fig. 11

The position of the palm is important in this routine. It’s perhaps more typical that the Down’s palm is held with the left thumb aligned with the first finger (shown in Fig. 12). For this routine, the left thumb should be aligned with the second finger (shown in Fig. 13). It’s a subtle difference that lends a more open and relaxed pose to the "dirty" hand while the palm is held. It’s important the palm is performed quickly and smoothly. It’s also important that the left thumb stroke the right thumb and Dime as in the explanation phase that precedes the first vanish. The vanish is not called that though. You describe how the Quarter is actually hidden behind the Dime. You just can’t see it.

The ANTINOMY Perspective

Fig. 12

This is a routine best performed for a single spectator or a small group when standing. It has a classical feel to it and is a perfect use for the Down’s Palm. When I saw it, I believed it, or something very similar, must have been published before. That may still be true, but I haven’t run across it. Even if a similar effect has seen print, the story behind this effect makes it a quick and entertaining routine. If you’re familiar with the Down’s Palm, it’s also an easy routine to learn. The key to making it look good is a smooth and fluid motion of the Quarter as it is seemingly placed behind the Dime. Work to make the motion flow the same whether you vanish the Quarter into Down’s Palm or not.

Fig. 13

page 40

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Touchstones and Crossroads It seems magicians, as a whole, prefer coin magic with larger coins. While certainly the Downs Palm is used fairly commonly, it’s use in routines involving Dimes and Quarters is not common at all. Even the theme presented here (that a larger coin can hide under a smaller one) seems uncommon. While I recall a version of the venerable “Coin Through Hand” that used the premise of a Dime supposedly hiding the larger coin, which is then revealed to have penetrated the hand, I cannot find a reference for it. So, we credit the Downs Palm and also mention a routine of Ross Bertram’s which at least uses a Dime, a larger coin, and the Downs Palm, but achieves a different effect altogether. T. Nelson Downs – The Downs Palm, The Art of Magic, 1921. Edited (written?) by John Northern Hilliard Interestingly, this palm is referred to differently in other classic texts of magic. In Henry Hay’s The Amateur Magician’s Handbook (1950) it’s referred to as “The Crotch Palm” even though two coin moves later “The Downs Click Pass” is taught. In Jean Hugard’s Modern Magic Manual (1957), it’s referred to as “The Fork of the Thumb Palm.” Ross Bertram – “Unflation,” Bertram on Sleight of Hand, 1983. Written by Ross Bertram

page 41

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The Honest Liar Discovering Importance "Don’t make unimportant things important." – Dai Vernon I am fond of epigrams. These nuggets of wisdom are useful tools for expressing big ideas in small packages. Such wheels need not be reinvented each time we need to take a ride on the great ideas of magic. If someone has expressed an idea better than I might have, it bears repeating. And as a teacher of magic – which encompasses my work as a writer, lecturer, consultant, director, and private instructor – I often do. In quoting such pithy jewels – frequently from sources like the sagacious Erdnase and the sage Al Baker – I am always aware that I am often quoting Dai Vernon. Vernon was fond of such aphorisms, and peppered his talk with them throughout his life. In Dai Vernon’s Expanded Lecture Notes 1 you can read the late Jay Marshall’s notes from a 1968 Vernon lecture in which Vernon quotes Leonardo da Vinci 2 with the phrase, "Details make perfection, but perfection is no detail," 3 and you can hear Vernon utilize the same quotation in 1982 on the Revelations videos. In the Expanded Lecture Notes, Marshall also provides notes from a 1965 lecture in which Vernon offers that "Confusion is not magic," a pet phrase, apparently of Vernon’s own coinage. He spent his life accumulating such gems, and I tend to my own collection in similar fashion. I have often quoted these same phrases, which I learned from Vernon’s body of work – his literature, audio recordings, video recordings, live appearances, and my own one-on-one contact with him late in his life. 4 The one time I saw Vernon lecture in 1978, 5 he gave away photos and his "spinner" coins to people who could identify the sources of some of his other favorite maxims, or who could quote them, as when he asked, "What does Erdnase name as the required sleights for 1 Magic, Inc., 1964 2 Whom Vernon likely studied at the Art Student League when he came to New York City in 1917 at the age of 23. 3 I prefer the wording, “Details make for perfection but perfection is no mere detail.” The phrase has also been translated by others as “Trifles make for perfection, but perfection is no trifle.” David Ben suggests in his book Advantage Play (Key Porter Books, 2001; p.52) that the phrase may actually have originated with Michelangelo, but in the absence of more definitive source information, I will continue to use the Professor’s attribution of Leonardo. 4 Certainly there are many who knew him far better than I, but I was lucky to know him at all. We first met in 1978, gradually became better acquainted in the 1980s, and I had the pleasure of periodically spending time with him from then until his eventual departure from Los Angeles in 1990. By the time we met, his influence on me and my magic, albeit at a distance, was profound and virtually complete. Getting to know him was an added privilege, because I gained some insight into who he was as a person, and I enjoyed knowing that person immensely, if only for a few years. Despite his increasing deafness he was otherwise completely “sharp” even well into his 90s, and I almost always found him a ready conversationalist. 5 At the national S.A.M. convention at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City.

page 42

Photo: Virginia Lee Hunter

Jamy Ian Swiss

The Honest Liar

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

"The Traveling Cards" (i.e., "The Cards Up the Sleeve")?” 6 And it was Vernon who pointed me to some of those marvelous Al Baker adages, which today are often mistakenly credited to the Professor, (although he always provided appropriate attribution), including one of his true favorites, "Magicians stop thinking too soon." As a man who never stopped thinking – and basically didn’t believe that any idea was ever sufficiently finished as to be perfect – it’s understandable why he would have found that statement so meaningful. Among the list of Vernon dicta I have frequently quoted is this one: "Don’t make unimportant things important." To me, this statement speaks to an important and insightful idea – to which I will return shortly. Recently, I began to think about this phrase more and more, and concluded that it might be worthy of a written discourse – like this essay – and so I began to research it, as I had always assumed it was a core Vernonism, commonly known to his many followers. And then, much to my surprise, matters began to take an unexpected turn. Nobody else knew the phrase. It was new to every Vernon acolyte whom I approached. 7 Virtually everyone agreed that it sounded like the kind of thing Vernon might say – or Baker, for that matter. And we discussed examples of what the statement might be trying to capture. But no one else knew the phrase. So now I had a minor mystery on my hands. I searched the Vernon oeuvre – the literature, from lecture notes to the early manuscripts, to the Ganson books, the Minch Chronicles, and He Fooled Houdini, the closest thing we have to a Vernon autobiography. I 8 searched through the Revelations videos and those made by Tony Delap, and the 22 years of The Vernon Touch, his column in Genii. And there was simply no sign of it. I am certain I heard Vernon say the phrase. It is filed in my mind like a Vernonism, a dictum, and thus something I either would have read – which apparently I did not – or would have heard him speak as a public (rather than private) pronouncement, that I then immediately assumed to be part of the Vernon canon. My best guess is that I heard him say it at that 1978 lecture, apparently off the cuff. 9 And ever since that night, I have returned to this phrase – studied it, used it, and repeated it. So much to my surprise, it now appears that rather than reconsidering a thing widely known, what I have in my hands is an archaeological artifact – a stone I upturned that, rather than being commonplace, turns out to have remained unseen all this time. I’m glad to bring my little treasure out into the light of day, and give it to you, that you may newly enjoy it, and that we may all savor it over time. ___ Don’t make unimportant things important. What does it mean?

6 If you were hoping to find the answer here – go look it up. 7 This list included but was not limited to (in alphabetical order): David Ben; John Carney; Bruce Cervon; Roberto Giobbi; Karl Johnson; Richard Kaufman; Max Maven; Stephen Minch; Earl Nelson; Harry Riser; John Thompson; Bob White; Tommy Wonder; and Herb Zarrow. 8 Along with generous and helpful friends like Matt Holtzclaw, Karl Johnson, and David Ben. 9 I have also viewed video of a lecture Vernon gave at the Magic Castle circa 1977 or 1978, from which the phrase is also absent, although much of the material is similar to that which he presented at the Waldorf. This suggests to me that the phrase was not one he had conceived and polished and frequently invoked.

page 43

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The Honest Liar

It could mean, "remove the extraneous and unnecessary." It could mean what another past master, Ascanio, called the "anticontrasting parenthesis," unneeded distractions from the clarity of a magical effect. But I don’t think so. I think it’s about an idea both more subtle and more important. To eliminate the unnecessary is obvious. It’s about editing. And yes, Vernon believed in that – believed in simplicity. Vernon’s minimalism is sometimes difficult to understand at first, because he was willing to go to great effort to achieve that simplicity. Al Baker said, "The simplest method is the best." But he never said the easiest method is the best. For Vernon, the simplest method might be the Classic Pass – but it is far from the easiest. For Vernon, simplicity required great effort, great focus, great clarity of thinking. But I don’t think that’s what he meant when I heard him say, "Don’t make unimportant things important." As magicians, we expend much time and energy on techniques and tools that remain invisible to the audience. This is obvious; it is the nature of deception that much of our work will be concealed. But the danger of this focus is that our vision can become distorted. To fool laymen we need to be able to think like laymen – to accurately imagine what and how they will think. Without this ability, we can’t fool anyone, except possibly ourselves. But in order to think like laymen we have to divorce ourselves from much of what we spend our time thinking about as magicians. To follow Vernon’s overarching mantra – "be natural" – we must learn to analyze and discover what naturalness really is to a laymen. We have to analyze and then convert our devious intentions into the appearance of naturalism. It’s all so very complicated, really – and yet our thinking, and our technique, must be rendered not merely transparent, as in other arts – the brush strokes of a painter, the fingering of a musician – but in fact must be reduced to absolute invisibility. This is very difficult work. And it can often be confusing. In our earliest days in magic, we find ourselves saying, "Here I have an ordinary pack of playing cards." And this promptly leads to our first lesson in not making unimportant things important: we are quickly corrected by our elders, and instructed that we must never say, "Here I have an ordinary pack of playing cards," because this statement of the obvious is counterproductive to our desired purpose. Instead of proving innocence, it raises suspicion. Why? Because we have taken an unimportant thing – so unimportant that, left to their own devices, laymen will simply assume it to be true – and brought attention, and thereby suspicion, upon it. If we only allow the laymen to convince themselves – to fool themselves – they will. But we choose to get in the way. We doth protest too much, methinks – and thus the play is ruined. When my students write their first card trick script, they will often include something like "Now I will shuffle and cut the cards," or "Now I will lose your card in the deck." But invariably all this serves to accomplish is to bring unnecessary focus on a set of events that, unless the shuffling is critically related to the core of the plot, should really be of no great importance. If we were simply returning the card to the pack, and we weren’t doing anything sneaky, we would not comment further, because the action is obvious and self-explanatory. But since we magi expend so much effort mastering our controls and false shuffles and the like, we distract ourselves, distort our focus, and feel compelled to comment on our hard work. We make the unimportant seem important – to the inescapable detriment of the mystery we are trying to achieve. A popular dealer item offers a version of the Bruno Hennig Card to Container (popularized by and often identified with Fred Kaps), in which a flap inside of a box creates the appearance of a folded card within. After you apparently discover the folded card in the box (and switch in the actual card via a shuttle pass), the gimmick allows you show the box empty. And so, after you make the important climactic discovery of the card – "And is it your card? And is that your signature on it? Thankyou very much!" – you then get to add: "And look – the box is empty!" The gaff is ingenious, but it is an ingenious solution for a non-existent problem. And pointing out that a box once emptied actually remains empty is a quintessential example of making the unimportant important. As a wacky bonus, in the original

page 44

The Honest Liar

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

versions of this gaffed prop, the flap did not lock. Therefore you got the chance to say, "And look, the box is empty – but you can’t touch it!" At least in the current iteration, the flap now locks – a worthy improvement. 10 This is why "here I have an ordinary pack of playing cards" is a good early lesson in Vernon’s dictum. It’s not just about leaving out what detracts from the effect – it’s really about a very specific kind of error – of making the unimportant important. This creed is closely related to Baker’s caution, "Don’t run when no one is chasing you." Vernon was fond of this Bakerism, and for good reason. For if you run, you often end up over-proving, and over-proving is part and parcel of making the unimportant important. Peter Samelson, in his book, Theatrical Close-up 11, comments at one point in his slow-motion coin vanish routine described therein, 12 that "The hands are not shown empty. They are just constantly seen empty." Elsewhere in the same work he offers that "Many good mysteries have been killed by [hands] protesting their innocence." 13 In yet another related notion, Max Maven pointed me to a quote from the 17th century mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal, who said that "We are generally the better persuaded by the reasons we discover ourselves than by those given to us by others." Thus, it is better to allow the audience to convince themselves the hand is empty, rather than attempting to prove it to them. Finger Palm and the Ramsay Subtlety, or Classic Palm and the Malini Subtlety, are generally far more deceptive than hand-washing transfer sequences that raise suspicion via over-proving. Vernon’s masterly vanish sequence in the Cups and Balls – two false transfers followed by a steal (the Wand Spin Vanish) that serves to cancel the method – is far more deceptive than a series consisting of little more than a repetition of acquitments in the service of a desperate attempt to prove one’s hands empty and overcome the terrifying guilt of holding out a concealed ball – a fundamental skill of conjuring. And what of that false transfer? Bob White, an articulate and expert Vernon student, relates a story of learning the Cups and Balls from the Professor many years ago. After the young White first performed the routine for his teacher, Vernon said, "You know the routine. But you’re over-proving," referring to a retention-of-vision vanish that Bob had worked out with a couple of friends. Vernon makes the same point on the Revelations videos, insisting that the false transfer must be made "casually," without focus; first you bring attention to the ball, then you shift attention to the wand, which you are about to retrieve, as you apparently transfer the ball, but without undue focus on the transfer. This is the same thinking that leads John Carney to avoid retention vanishes, because they place emphasis on the wrong beat. Ironically, it was Vernon who devised the essence of the Retention Vanish, but the difference between his execution and that of some modern handlers was that he avoided "framing up" for the move. Vernon went into the sleight casually, without drawing the spectators’ undue focus, and did not follow the coin into his hand with his eyes. Vernon often cautioned against "telegraphing" a move in this 10 And speaking of marketed items, if you produce a selected card from a wallet made from a rare species with a unique pattern, perhaps dyed an unusual color – you have missed the point of why we make cards appear in wallets in the first place. The point is that the card appears not only in an impossible location – that is, a difficult place to reach – but that it arrives in a perfectly ordinary and therefore suspicion-free location – namely, your ordinary, practical, exists-for-obvious-purpose, utterly uninteresting wallet A wallet that does not perform the magic for you; in fact, that clearly does not assist you in any manner whatsoever, so that you are the sole force responsible for the magic. You see, everything you do communicates something to the audience – whether you realize it or not. Whether you want it to or not. When you bring out a wallet and it bursts into flame, it will get a tremendous reaction. (So would dropping your pants, in the proverbial example.) When the fire goes out and you produce the selected card, you have now communicated a woefully specific message to the audience. What message is that? That you know the location of the local magic shop. Congratulations, oh worker of wonders. 11 1984, Magical Publications, and now virtually a cult classic of sorts. 12 “Mimetic Slo-Mo Show ’n Vanish.” Who allowed that title? Didn’t this book have an editor? 13 This statement is the “moral” of his parable, “The Story of the Shouting Postman.” The actual moral uses the name “Hans” instead of the word “hands” because – well, because it’s a parable.

page 45

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

The Honest Liar

manner, and frequently demanded that students figure out "how to get into" a move, remonstrating that the move was worth little by itself without attending to such matters. Choosing the right moment to do the move was, for Vernon, as important as choosing the move itself. Mr. White also offers the example of the magician who begins a Color-Changing Deck routine by pointing out the initial color of the backs, either through explicit commentary or by over-proving with displays. No one would normally say "The backs are blue," and such a statement only leads the audience to think about the alternative: perhaps they are not blue. It is far preferable to allow the audience to notice on their own that the cards are blue, by leaving the box in view, and doing a natural display that occurs in the course of some other appropriate actions or procedures. Oftentimes, mistakes of making the unimportant important come from a lack of thought and attention to detail. Frequently such lapses stem from a lack of familiarity with new material. In the absence of a carefully prepared script, we slip lazily into banal and redundant descriptive narration: "Now I will put the copper coin into my hand. Now I will close my hand around the coin." Someone once said (and I wish I knew who) that the only other model for this kind of speech is a television cooking show: "Now I am putting in the onions. Now I am stirring the soup." The sheer drudgery of such speech may be enough to give your audience indigestion. Such carelessness is to be avoided. Consider what you are saying and why you are saying it. Beware of unintentionally emphasizing that which should remain unnoticed. And keep in mind as well that such mundane speech, even if you have avoided the mistake of offering misplaced emphasis, is plainly dull. Bob White offers an appropriate maxim: "Nothing is more ludicrous than taking inventory of the obvious." Eric Mead offers a good example that speaks to some of the differences between magic and mentalism. In his early work with billet switches, he approached the task as a magician would, with much displaying of empty hands, pulled back sleeves, and emphasis on how fair everything was. Eventually he came to realize that "The old masters like Annemann and Corinda were right: this kind of magician mode dilutes the illusion of mentalism. You are emphasizing something that does not matter in billet work. As important as it is in, for example, conjuring with coins, it is equally unimportant in billet work and needs to be eliminated." Even mentalists need to avoid rendering the unimportant important. ___ Two of Vernon’s favorite Al Baker quotes were "Magicians stop thinking too soon," and "Many a trick has been ruined by improvement." On the face of it, these ideas may seem potentially contradictory. If you keep thinking, don’t you keep improving? Well, not necessarily. Vernon often kept thinking – and improving – by eliminating, rather than by adding. This was a reflection of his striving for simplicity in method and directness of effect. There are also contradictions to be found in his caution about making the unimportant important. There are many instances in magic in which we choose deliberately to emphasize the unimportant as a means of improving a deception. By placing exaggerated focus on conditions, we may be providing useful misdirection by which to conceal certain elements of the method that cannot otherwise be adequately concealed. Here is Eric Mead again: "Consider a simple example like Coins Across. In order to do the secret manipulations that make the effect mysterious, there is a lot of extraneous handling. The coins are shuffled around, or put down and picked up, or transferred from hand to hand, etc. Although this handling is the crux of the matter from the magician’s point of view, it must be downplayed to the point of invisibility from the audience’s point of view. It has to be constructed so that these actions appear incidental if there is to be a sense of the impossible. One of the most effective tools to help conceal those actions is to emphasize the conditions of each phase: Empty hands, only four coins, sleeves back, and so forth – things that would be utterly unimportant if you were doing it by real magic."

page 46

The Honest Liar

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

Eric adds that "This is one of the hallmark elements of Tamariz’s ‘Theory of False Solutions,’ in which you emphasize conditions and imply many possible methods in order to force the audience toward certain (false, but believable) conclusions. Then, when it’s too late for them to backtrack and attempt to reconstruct, you remove the conclusion you forced on them in the first place. And then it comes: there’s nothing left but the sensation of magic!" How do we resolve the apparent dichotomy? Simply put, making the unimportant important should only be done carefully, by deliberation, to accomplish a specific and well thought-out goal. If you have allowed the unimportant to become important by dint of carelessness, or by failing to understand the intended effect clearly, then beware: Don’t make unimportant things important. ___ Another lens through which one’s vision can become further distorted is that of doing magic for magicians. All sorts of conditions are of interest to magicians that bear no relationship whatever to a layman’s concerns. Suddenly that box being empty is not so important after all! But if a lot of your audiences are made up of your colleagues from the magic club, you run the danger of having your vision becoming permanently distorted. On the one hand, as Tommy Wonder commented to me, "Some tricks would not make a hoot of difference to us magicians when the sleeves are rolled up, but those sleeves being up might be perceived as mighty important to the audience." On the other hand, when constructing magic for magicians, Eric Mead observes that "Often those very ‘magician’s magic’ points are mistakenly thought to be advancements for regular performance for the masses." ___ And so, there you have it. I have dug it up, dusted it off, and held it up for you to consider, admire, utilize. Make sure when you’re done with it that you pass it along to somebody else who might get some use out of it. And when you do hand it down, don’t thank me – thank Vernon. After all: Don’t make unimportant things important.

page 47

ANTINOMY Issue 3 Third Quarter 2005

In Closing... Small Things. When I select quotations for use on the Table of Contents page of this magazine, they are only loosely related to magic and may not mention magic at all. They are certainly not quotations by magicians about magic. I feel this allows the reader to bring as much to them as may already be there and makes them more interesting on the whole. For this month’s quotes, I sought out references to the two-word phrase ‘Small Things.” This was fed by a reference I heard the comedian Jerry Seinfeld make on the HBO program On the Record. This was a Bob Costas interview program that aired a few years ago. I remember the moment well as Seinfeld, in a moment of seriousness, explained how few in comedy were willing to “take a small thing and make it larger” anymore. At least that is the gist of what I recall. He spoke for a few moments on this topic and I recall thinking his comments could be applicable to magic as well. I would like to be able to obtain a video or a transcript of this interview, but at this late date it might not be possible. And so I am left with the memory alone. When we do magic, especially magic of the close-up variety, it is a small thing we do. The question is always how to make it resonate so that it becomes a bigger thing. Given the small slice of the magic bandwidth that this magazine consumes, Antinomy is an extremely small thing that I do. But I like to believe it resonates and that its ability to make an impact has not peaked. Certainly, in the way that it feeds my interests, it feels large to me. I hope it grows in a similar way as each issue finds its way to you. One of the small surprises in this small thing I do has been the response of the international community. Over one quarter of the subscribers to Antinomy live outside the United States. I’ve also received contributions from the international audience and am looking to publish a couple of those in the next issue. Of course, I don’t mean to give the Domestic contingent short shrift. Maybe it’s time for a little Antinomy Trivia. Which State (in these United States) has the largest number of subscribers? I’ll give you a moment... The answer: California, a veritable hotbed of close-up magic activity and interest. Next Issue: Stephen Bargatze with, not just one, but two presentations for the same trick. And they’re both funny. See you then.

page 48