cringing in the limelight

there is something sinister in basking the the glory and accolades that result at the successful completion of a trick or effect. the audience is giving me credit for something that i do not deserve. its all hogwash. i may have been instrumental in bringing about the final climax but to be honest i did not do what the audience gave me credit for which is yet another strange in a world that is strangeness epitomized.

i think that actors share the same queer experience just as we magicians do. if you ask yourself honestly, will you ever be able to figure out if you loved an actor because of his screen persona or because of his exceedingly good acting ability. sometimes i think we can never know the real answer ever ... we just convince ourselves that we do know it but its all a sham anyways.

like wise do you think the audiences applaud and celebrate what it is we actually do or what it is that they THINK we do ? obviously its the latter with most audiences but there are also those who admire the actual behind the scene work. i feel very guilty in accepting a prize that is not mine to have. however this is what has to be done for the professional magician otherwise he will end up on street and die in hunger. working professionals donot care care the ethics and logic of performing magic they got into it because they were stung by the bug but now they can't get out so they might as well exist. its hobbyists like me who flirt with sensibilities and reasoning behind magic and its practice. so everytime i perform a masterpiece the resounding thunder of the claps always result in guilt when i rethink. i feel like i have cheated them and most importantly myself. i hate to pretend to be somebody that i m not, i hate to act the part of a magician. i feel they are as phony as silicon breasts. i am spending more and more time trying to perfect my moves and being my own audience. i have stopped calling myself a magician, in fact i m not one.

halo cut, unnatural ?

oh my god this is the second post where i am criticizing mr. harry lorayne again, what the heck is wrong with me. any ways here it goes ...

HaLo Aces is the effect I believe where the magician seems to genuinely loose the aces in the pack and then dead cuts to them even while shuffling the deck. when i was first shown the effect it boggled my mind to a great extent. its ingenious in its working from a magician's point of view and is a great magician fooler.

it was when i was playing with this effect that it occurred to me that there is a basic fallacy in the Halo Cut. if u kick cut the top half then the card at the bottom of the top talon or the top card of the bottom talon is technically the card you have dead cut to ... right ? but that is not the case with the HaLo cut. of course it will pass by all laymen but i wonder how it did not occur to me that i was completely oblivious to the fallacy. this just goes to show how blind we get when performing our magic we seldom think about what it is exactly that we are doing.

any ways the solution that i m currently using is to use the Halo cut and then complete the cut keeping a break and then cutting the deck once again this time there is no fallacy when executing the dead cut.

by the way the reason i think i discovered the unnaturalness of the halo cut is a post by tyler wilson on the unnaturalness of the double undercut. though i personally don't think the double undercut is unnatural but if mr. lorayne gets angry then he should know that it is mr. tyler wilson who should get the blame :P

ultra move , natural ?

i like the ultra move (harry lorayne) a lot ... haven't used it much but practice it every now and then. there is one un natural issue with it which bothers me at times. if using the left thumb you push the top card to the side to display its identity to the spectators you must also pull it back with the left thumb. this happens naturally and also because the thumb is still in contact with the card and the other fingers can't reach ``easily" the side of the pushed card. in order for the fingers to push back the card the thumb has to first pull the card back a little then the fingers can complete the job.

an important rule

when ever i perform for my friends at university i run the risk of being analyzed by some clever guys. they are all engineers by training and really smart so doing a self working card trick for them is a strict no no ... they just don't praise my miracle and continue on awestruck .. in fact they sit down and deconstruct the effect they just saw me perform ... i have learnt my lesson well enough and thought of warning you guys as well.

so the next time you wanna perform the 21 card trick ... throw in a little bit of sleight of hand so they can't trace back to the secret by simply following the steps.

speaking of 21 card trick here is a great rendition of it



some idiot in the comment is displeased at malone for not delivering his best ... poor chap he does not know what magic is :D

card trick with same potential as cups and balls

i was watching the great tommy wonder on the youtube doing his cups and balls and the thought occurred to me that may be the only card trick that uses heavy misdirection and repeated audience fooling is the ``card under the box/drink". though while writing this post the ambitious card trick might be another contender.

in case you are wondering here is the youtube clip.

erdnase again

i really like this post from Devol over at the Scoundrels Forum

Here's some details on the David Alexander candidate.....

In and around Helena, Montana lived the father:
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S000039

and the son:
http://nwda-db.wsulibs.wsu.edu/findaid/ark:/80444/xv57460

A few bits of information:
1) The book is not called "The Expert at the Card Table"......it's called (as per the title page) "Artifice, Ruse, and Subterfuge at the Card Table"......but you need an actual first edition to see the title page as Erdnase meant it to be seen.
2) Although Darwin Ortiz "Annotations" does give the correct title, it does not use the original, and very important typography of the first edition.
3) The authors name, and the books title aren't simple anagrams (as Andru points out above), but rather are highly complex anagrams.
4) The authors name provide four useable anagrams which result in proper names (in addition to the standard Andrews). Ward Essen, Wes Anders, E.W. Sanders, and W.E. Sanders.
5) How do we find the real name?........we look at original source material for Erdnase research, his book........Erdnase only names one sleight in the book after himself, the S.W.E. Shift , and in doing so, he tells us who he is!
6) A "shift" (as in S.W.E. Shift) moves the top block of cards to the bottom. If we follow Erdnase's anagram instructions and apply them to the letters in his secret clue, we would move the "S" in S.W.E. Shift to the bottom, we get the initials "W.E.S.".........and lo and behold we have an anagram candidate named (get ready for it).............W.E. Sanders!!
7) To further put the nail in the Andrews coffin, if we also reverse the original name of the book (and remove the tiny type in the original typeset), we get "Cardtable Subterfuge, And-Ruse Artiface (Andrews is artiface).

So he tells the die-hard researcher that he's not Mr. Andrews, and that he is W.E. Sanders!

When M.D. Smith sat down with S.W. Erdnase in a cold Chicago hotel room was he really sitting down with Wilbur Edgerton Sanders from Helena, Montana?

I have pictures of W.E. Sanders, unfortunately they're not online, and they're not mine to share. I will say that looking at this young chaps eyes as he stares right into the camera gives me the stone-cold-shivers.
Are they the eyes of S.W. Erdnase?

interesting eh ?

no it's not done by magic

there are those who would like to insist that its done by magic ... come on guy's this is the age or reason and rationality, why would any body want to propogate wrong notions. do you expect ppl to believe that its the dummy that does the talking and not the ventriloquist ?
you may want ppl to think its real magic if you don't want ppl to probe into the modus operandi of a trick. even then this is not the right approach, humans are inquisitive by nature and they would like to know what's going on behind the trick that puzzles them.
the worst offenders i think are the mentalist who like to feed spoonfulls of bullshit that sounds like pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.

the whoring of magic

if magic is subsidiary to your entertainment act, please don't call is a magic show. i mean if you are going to dance or sing and do magic ``in between" then it ISN'T a magic show, is it ? call it a variety act or a pot pourri but dont' call it a magic show ... the defining feature of magic is the element of mystery which HAS to be placed above all aspects of the show.
yeah bill malone is a great comic while he is doing magic but if you look close he is delivering magic first, the comedy bits are the in between stuff. then again he is a pragmatic person who well understands that arm chair hobbyists like myself don't understand what it really means to earn a living doing magic. yes one has to be a whore to sell the show if the magic alone won't pimp the deal for you.

why skill is important ?

i have never liked max maven for one reason or the other. may be phil goldstein is a likable person but max maven the magician or the mentalist is not on my list of "what a guy". i caught a glimpse of his show where he tries to impress upon his audience the idea that he is an erudite. he recites lots of big names in science and literature and then frowns upon the audience in a mocking fashion when they can't seem to relate to the mumbo jumbo he mouths. what a shame !

check out the big mess he lands himself in to in trying a classic force

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmnpfvfngp8

``so what?" you say, every body misses now and then. yes they do but did you notice the fumble. the fact that he was not allowing a free choice was clear and apparent. so skill = nada, quick thinking = nada, managing a situation = nada. so why should he deserve any credit at all ?

now go and watch this and marvel why skill is so so so important

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKPwhdMT3gQ

ghost restaurant at kolkata

gleaned this report from rediff a couple of days back and was disappointed in a sense. don't know if mr. sorcar is going after money or something else. the theme does not appeal to me and in some sense appears logical. why would anybody want to mix food with the world of dead. as far as india is concerned we consider food to be sacred and the kitchen is a place that signifies purity and cleanliness which is very opposite to what we associate with ghosts and spirits. if it works out then its good but i rather that he concentrated on popularizing magic as in having magic as in house entertainment.

http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/jun/10/kolkata-to-boast-of-a-ghost-restaurant-soon.htm

dead hand

while i wouldn't have expected tamariz to do it but he certainly did it. first watch the video here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtF6bty__XM&feature=rec-HM-r2

its quite conspicous how dead his left hand is at the beginning of the routine and continues like that for a good 1 minute or so until he does the add on. also since he moves his right hand a good deal it makes the dead left hand stand out.

there are many who are blind to any mistakes made by big names. let this be yet another lesson for those.

neglected training in magic

there are so many aspects that go in to making a miracle out of a mere magic trick. i m talking about sleight of hand magic in particular. many spend innumerable hours practicing sleight of hand but rarely train in ways to hide non-verbal communication(nvc). humans are amazingly good at picking up body language and other nvc.

how should the hand drop when it hides an object ? good magic books call attention to that hands should be held naturally but its become more of a lip service than anything else. in fact most magicians are not doing as much good magic as they lip service the so called greats.

thanks to the you tube and tv i see many so called experts performing and each and every time i find how at one hand they are successful in sone aspects but fail in other aspects and these other aspects are important for those who truly love magic. its not mighty important for laymen, 'coz they may be appeased by something that is not essential to magic for example they may be happy at the presentational skills of the performer or his comic lines or jokes etc.

one common observation is how the hand goes completely dead after palming ... it just becomes a heavy log and stays there ... its a sore sight really.

may be these nvc are easy to pick up when watching magic on telly or internet ... who knows ?

it's a question of beating muscle memory really ... our muscles and bodies are trained in a way that makes it difficult to make different situations look the same. for example our brains have learnt to move hands that hide nothing in a particular fashion ... when we try to replicate the same actions with somethings hidden in our hands our brains and bodies betray that fact and the movement is not the same. only training can rewire the brain to make both the movements same.

perhaps there should be a video archive of normal ppl doing ordinary motions. magicians should study those movements as artists study motion in humans and animals. also i think its vitally important to first do the actual action and then do the false one. better yet record yourself doing the actual action 100 times even before you begin to learn a sleight. we magicians learn it the wrong way ... we first learn the false movement since our teachers or books tell us to do so and then one fine day when we really and i mean really understand the phrase ``be natural" do we compare our movements with the actual movements. but by then our minds are corrupt and its not easy to replicate an untainted movement that normal ppl do.

magic and sleight of hand are disjoint

yeah yeah yeah ... another lecture from a virtual unknown mad man

no no no ... these may be the same words but i intend to say something different today. many magicians say that doing sleight of hand alone is not magic . you see magic provides the opportunity to integrate other skills into sleight of hand; though some may view it as the other way round. but i do believe that magic is really about sleight of hand and the story telling part, the patter the presentation are simply addons that do not form the core of magic. but yes chances are if you know the customer likes ice cream and you are serving cold coffee, there has bound to be a great urge to put in a dollop of ice cream to make it more attractive to the audience. the analogy being that magic is coffee which is made more pleasing by incorporating other forms of entertainment.

when david copperfield presents his illusion the entire experience is made up of magic, music, dance, glitz, glamour, humour, presentation. its the sum total of all these that make up the experience for the audience. the reason we still call it a magic show is because at the very core of it is sleight of hand. can we really claim that it is magic alone that enamours the audience ? can we quantify what percentage of credit goes to magic alone in wowing the audience.
'"
now imagine a david blaine on street with this "look, watch... watch ...look" patter .... no funny quips, no glamour ... just pure magic in your face. in this case atleast one will not feel too uncomfortable in attributing a large percentage of the credit to magic. there is a fine point here though which i reserve for a later post... and just to remind myself of this i will write a line or two about it.
david blaine is david blaine today not because he did street magic. he is what he is today because he did street magic on tv. tv is a wonderful medium that nonlinearly transforms what ever gets viewed thru it. anyways more of that later.. back to the topic.

since there are so many departments that together form magic as a form of entertainment as we know it today it is quite possible to complement deficiencies in one department with surpluses garnered in from another department.

many a times the lay audience really does not care for other departments. say the magi has poor chops but is a good story teller ... there is a great possibility that the audience will come away dazzled with the performance if the story telling was good. or say he is as funny as bill malone but does not have his chops then too the audience has a great time. the problem is that the audience will claim that they saw a "good" "magician". which is feel would not be a correct assessment of the situation.

we can't expect audience to lap in pure sleight of hand ... it would not be palatable to them so the need arises to throw in humour, patter and presentation. this i feel dilutes pure magic and renders it as just another form of entertainment which is no different than a juggling act with the same quality of humour and presentation. what then is the distinction ? apart from the core of it which is sleight of hand.

Unfortunately sleight of hand is being ignored by many as they believe ( rightly so) that as long as the entire package is good then it does not matter if there are some below average ingredients in it.

i find myself gravitating more and more towards pure sleight of hand ... more so after i watched mr. steve forte and other giants like him. magicians are more yap than work and that saddens me.

bill goodwin on dan and dave

bill goodwin is releasing some product(s) on dan and dave's site. now this is a good thing because i have so many nice things about this gentleman. the non availability of the works of truly gifted magicians has been a point of lamentation for me. i mean dai vernon was so good and we have so few recordings of him on video. that's really lamentable. yes he did write books and through books we can get to know his work. but so many others (read wesley james ) can write good books who can not do half of the moves well enough. if they can't do the moves well enough but can write good books about invisible moves and beautiful moves that will steal the breath away off the laity then isn't that hipocrisy. of course magic is not only about moves and its possible to write good books about plotting and routining and theatrical aspects of magic (read juan tamariz, tommy wonder). however if the same men/women write good books and create bad material then i will certainly get angry. this is simply not done.

the proof of the pudding is in the eating and when it comes to magic ... specially sleight of hand then the proof of the mastery is the work of these so called experts. when it comes to the thinking behind magic then the written works are good enough for example tamariz's work. but sleight of hand means the move must look good in person and hopefully on camera. i say hopefully since not all magic can look good on camera.

anyways to come to my point i really wish that the acclaimed masters of sleight of hand put their work in video for posterity to marvel at. this will clear out so many confusions.

i can corroborate my argument with one question and if you are a true sleight of hand student you will agree with me.

don't you wish erdnase was captured on camera ?

P. C. Sorcar Sr.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Bangalore/Father-of-modern-magic-remembered/articleshow/4179493.cms