Card To Wallet

[Nathan Muir]

Richard is absolutely correct.

LOL.

It is magicians who remember the size, color, construction of the wallet, forever looking for "the best" wallet.

That's not what this discussion is about at all. Size, color and so on may be all you understand of the issue but the actual issue is about conditions and how they are determined by methodology.

Lay audiences just remember that you pulled the card out of an impossible place. As part of my restaurant work I ended with LePaul's Card in Sealed Envelope. I've done it hundreds of times and it never failed to stun as a sealed envelope is a common items that everyone was familiar with. The un-gimmicked envelope was left with the spectators as there was nothing to find.

Charlie Miller taught me a Card to Wallet with an ordinary, ungimmick walled where the chosen card ended up in one of the little plastic picture holders inside a folded wallet. The wallet was taken from the pocket and handed to the spectator who opened it themselves. It was quite strong. I don't know if it was ever published.

It is ironic that you scoff at a discussion of conditional aspects then your two examples are illustrations of the imposing of additional conditions to strengthen the effect.

[Glenn Bishop]

When I used to do card to wallet I used the LePaul Wallet that was made by Lee Noble. I still have the wallet and use it only on occasion and in formal close up show situations.

This is the wallet that loads the card or cards into an envelope. And in my opinion - and it took me a lot of shows to learn this - it is not the wallet that is the important part of the trick in this method it is the envelope. In the old days I used to put the wallet on the table in front of them.

I used this when I was performing on a TV show for host Craig Clyde in Salt Lake City UT. The show was called Weekdays and the station was Kstu (80's).

Then I learned (after many many shows) that the wallet only holds the envelopes so I take the envelopes out of the wallet and put them on the table and put the wallet back in my pocket.

After I have them shuffle the deck I do a build up and then I show the envlopes open one and have them remove their card from the envelope.

For walk around I do not like the set up so as a performer that doesn't like to set up so instead I would do the card to pocket or the card to deck box. Me I like to have the card signed over not having the card signed.

[mrgoat]

For walk around I do not like the set up so as a performer that doesn't like to set up so instead I would do the card to pocket or the card to deck box. Me I like to have the card signed over not having the card signed.

I think that Whit Haydn's reset for his card to wallet climax to ambitious card is just amazing. I hired him for a gig a couple of years ago and saw him do this routine half a dozen times. Wonderfully ballsy reset. He simply just does it at the end of the trick. In front of everyone. Slips by them all.

[Glenn Bishop]

If that is the way you or Whit Hayden wants to work. And that is your cup of tea - I have no problem with that.

I do not like set up or prep work when I am working walk around. I don't use any trick coins or cards where I need a set up. I like to throw the loads back in my pockets and move right on to the next table.

And if I set up for the next table I may cull needed cards to the top as I do a card trick - before I move to the next table as I jog shuffle the deck - while doing the card trick.

That is the way I like to work walk around. I feel that the less prep work the more tables you can do - that makes you have more vlaue to the restaurant or the client. I have worked with magicians that have to set up and act between tables. I hit more tables than they do - and I just don't like to work that way.

However if it is for a formal close up show - I don't mind a little prep work.

[erdnasephile]

For walk around I do not like the set up so as a performer that doesn't like to set up so instead I would do the card to pocket or the card to deck box. Me I like to have the card signed over not having the card signed.

I think that Whit Haydn's reset for his card to wallet climax to ambitious card is just amazing. I hired him for a gig a couple of years ago and saw him do this routine half a dozen times. Wonderfully ballsy reset. He simply just does it at the end of the trick. In front of everyone. Slips by them all.

Derek Dingle used to do this as well (according to Simon Lovell)

[El Mystico]

My Dad booked Vernon to lecture for the Portland Or SAM. And If I remember the story right. Vernon climaxed the routine of the four cards to different pockets with the last card coming out of the LePaul sealed envelopes. As it was written up in the LePaul book the Card Magic Of LePaul.

My dad liked the idea and the routine and did it all his performing life. However being the kind of guy that liked to work with less set up. He pulled the last signed card out of a business card wallet and handed the un-gimmicked wallet to the spectator letting them open it - and the power punch of this was that when the small wallet was opened the signed card was seen under the plastic of the business card wallet.

It's interesting. Vernon may well have done this. He experimented a lot with different handlings of his effects.
But it is worth recording that on the Revelations DVD series he says that combining the Travelers with a card to wallet ending decreases the real, pure effect. The argument is to keep the two separate; if you pull the last card from the wallet, they forget the first three.

[Glenn Bishop]

But it is worth recording that on the Revelations DVD series he says that combining the Travelers with a card to wallet ending decreases the real, pure effect. The argument is to keep the two separate; if you pull the last card from the wallet, they forget the first three.

The same argument could be made for the card to wallet as a climax to an ambitious card routine.

I remember the night Bill Malone asked Ed Marlo to join us at Houdini's Pub. Bill Malone was the lead magician there and I was working in the pub that night.

I did both the shell game and fooled Ed Marlo with my ending and also Matrix. And climaxed the routine with a big coin. Ed Marlo's opinion on matrix and the big coin ending is the same point of view - that after the big coin they forget the coins jumping from card to card.

I also had the same conversation with Al Schneider at the Chicago Top Hat Mini Convention. He said the same thing about matrix and the big coin and the production of the big coin detracts from the original effect of the coins jumping.

Then I said to Al the same line I gave Ed Marlo - you do the cups and balls and load big balls don't you?

Al answered - yes but you can do the cups and ball without big loads.

I said again - Yes you can do the cups and balls without big loads but YOU DO LOAD the big balls in your cups and balls routine?

Then Al said - Ok Glenn you have my permission to load big coins in matrix.

When I sessioned with Don Alan we talked about both stories and he laughed and said - load - and keep hitting the audience with the strongest and most direct magic you can do.

I have used the travelers and the ambitious card as a lead in for card to wallet and I have found that both routines build with good strong audience reaction to the climax of the card being produced from the wallet.

And as a "performer" I would agree with Don Alan - and my dad and I would choose (and I do) to do things that way!

[Jonathan Townsend]

Glenn,

One could argue that the best way to finish a routine is to produce a dove from a fan of cards and then a puppy from under the closeup pad.

What some are arguing though is that one could also play each magical event to get the strongest reactions without recourse to large objects and cumbersome productions.

Has anyone made a wallet that unfolds many times till it's HUGE and then unzipped it to have an assistant walk out?

:)

[Jim Maloney]

*gasp* PUPPIES!

[Richard Kaufman]

I think this is a valid and actually important topic for discussion, because there is a wide divergence of opinion on this.

It seems to me that you need to figure out your own strengths as a performer and act accordingly.

Personally, I wouldn't do Vernon's Travelers and end with either the LePaul envelopes or a wallet because I'm blowing two tricks in one shot. I would do card to wallet first, then after another trick in the middle, then end with Vernon's Travelers (or, even better, Jennings' Ambidextrous Travelers).

But you really have to figure out which suits your performing personality best: trick selection doesn't exist in a vacuum.

[Glenn Bishop]

And if I may add - Vernon did climax his cups and balls routine with the big loads. And the point of that is the same point that is made in the matrix routine.

That is that the big balls being produced in the cups and balls detracts from the magic that was performed in the cups and balls - they forget after the big balls are produced.

But then again Don Alan did a ball and cup routine as a lead in to load big balls into a chop cup. A sponge ball and bowl routine as a lead in to load a big ball barring into the bowl.

And then a coin and hat routine as a lead in to load the big nut into the hat.

I as a performer that makes his living pleasing the client and the audience I think I would choose - in the way of Don Alan and my dad.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I hope most everybody here understands about applause cues. Just in case we have a few new to the idea here's a rough idea:

After you engage their attention and
After you win them over with claims made good
You can shift the pace with an obvious display
So they know it's time to show their appreciation.

[Glenn Bishop]

I remember reading in my dads notes on LePaul. That he did a four card selection he had the audience members sign each card and then after the cards were lost in the deck he spread the cards on the table face down and then let the audience members pull out four cards and they ended up being the selections.

Then after the trick was over he lost them on the deck again and they ended up in the envelope.

According to more hearsay this could be one of the ways that LePaul might routine what he did or how he might have "worked" in front of an audience in the smaller night clubs where they did not have a band and the audience was right on top of the performer.

Anyway - it is just hearsay story.

[El Mystico]

Ir's also worth mentioning that, on his DVD, Al Schneider does not end his matrix with a giant coin; so while he may have told Glenn he could end it how he wanted, it looks like he was not persuaded to do it himself.

[El Mystico]

Glenn; a few weeks back you posted a video of you culling and stacking the aces. It didnt end with you producing them from your wallet, or switching them into a set of giant four aces. Why?

Here is what I think. I don't present it as The Answer, but it is the way I've made sense of this issue.

The Cups and Balls is not so much a trick, it is more an act. It is a set of effects; the balls vanish, reappear, pass through metal, go from one cup to another, etc. The best performers bear in mind that several effects are involved, and point each effect up. (But maany performers treaat it as one trick, rush through it, and leave the spectators with a confused blur).
In such a situation, adding an extra effect, that of the balls changing size, or changing into tomatoes, or whatever, makes a lot of sense.

But when you are doing Matrix, or when you are culling and stacking aces, those are simple clear effects, that can be described in a simple sentence. And that's why I choose not to add a "jumbo" kicker to such things.

I think the same argument applies to Travelers and card to wallet; but the difference is not so clear cut. I'm with Richard - it is like blowing two tricks with one shot. On the other hand, I'm not sure I would do both Travelers and card to Wallet in the same set; they are too similar.

[Glenn Bishop]

Ir's also worth mentioning that, on his DVD, Al Schneider does not end his matrix with a giant coin; so while he may have told Glenn he could end it how he wanted, it looks like he was not persuaded to do it himself.

Yes - but my point was he still ended his cups and balls routine with the large loads.

[Glenn Bishop]

Glenn; a few weeks back you posted a video of you culling and stacking the aces. It didnt end with you producing them from your wallet, or switching them into a set of giant four aces. Why?

The reason why is that the video - (those video's have had very positive comments toward my magic business of booking and performing shows I might add) - Why is because at the time I was not using the technique to do card to wallet.

The video was posted only to show that culling and stacking techniques were possible with the triumph shuffle.

Had I used the same technique ideas for a card to wallet I would have done a video this way. Marlo's simple shift then cull them to the top then shuffle palm them to the wallet. And I have used this technique for the cards under the drink as well.

The Cups and Balls is not so much a trick, it is more an act. It is a set of effects; the balls vanish, reappear, pass through metal, go from one cup to another, etc. The best performers bear in mind that several effects are involved, and point each effect up. (But maany performers treaat it as one trick, rush through it, and leave the spectators with a confused blur).
In such a situation, adding an extra effect, that of the balls changing size, or changing into tomatoes, or whatever, makes a lot of sense.

And on the other hand - I have seen cups and balls routines that were so long I thought that I would have to shave again.

My cups and balls routine is short and snappy. I do a few moves and I load. I got ideas from the Vernon - and Jim Ryan Routines but over the years cut it down to it's best and most strongest parts.

In a way it is like the way Don Alan might do it - do a few moves and hook them and draw them in then - hit them hard with the climax - bam.

This is what I would call is the difference between being a commercial magician over being a technical magician.

And that's why I choose not to add a "jumbo" kicker to such things.

And I would choose to be a commercial magician over being a technical magician. And I would load a big load in cups and balls - chop cup - matrix or any other magic routine that I think it is necessary.

I think the same argument applies to Travelers and card to wallet; but the difference is not so clear cut. I'm with Richard - it is like blowing two tricks with one shot. On the other hand, I'm not sure I would do both Travelers and card to Wallet in the same set; they are too similar.

I have no problem with you doing it your way. As you and others should not (but often do) have some kind of a problem with me doing things my way.

Since I have posted my video's of stacking and culling on my web site I have had a lot of nice comments about those video's from the lay audience and clients. Because in my opinion the video is commercial.

Just thought I would add that!

[El Mystico]

Hi Glenn;
I don't have a problem with what you do.
I'm just trying to contribute to the debate by explaining the way I see things.

I do have a problem with the idea that one is either a "commercial" magician or a "technical" magician.
True story; my sister hates magic. But, years ago, she saw Dai Vernon on TV, and he was the only magician she thought was any good. So - commercial or technical? It's a false divide.

[Ian Kendall]

I think Dom nailed the difference between the cups and matrix.

Also, I have to take issue with the concept that 'commercial' and 'technical' are mutually exclusive. I know many technical magicians who are able to work in a commercial field.

Too often the two adjectives are misused; perhaps 'with presentation' and 'without presentation' would be more accurate. I'm not going to claim that overly technical routines can't be mind numbingly dull, but that is often a byproduct of the fact that the typical magician who works on this type of effect usually has limited social skills and does not perform for a living. If one practices purely for practice's sake there is little need for an engaging story.

However, technical skill, when combined with a winning personality and an above average presentation ability can produce miracles - ref Williamson, Malone, Wonder or Levand.

Take care, Ian

[Jonathan Townsend]

Ian, if the audience knows it's technical - and you're not there to teach them - then something is very wrong IMHO.

[Bill Duncan]

Yes - but my point was he (Al Schneider) still ended his cups and balls routine with the large loads.

The Cups and Balls is a trick in which large somethings are produced from under inverted somethings. Everything that precedes the loads is what Hitchcock used to call a MacGuffin.

The phases which lead up to the production sequence exist to focus all eyes on the space where the production will take place, and to ensure, that every member of the audience knows there is nothing under the cups before there IS something under the cups.
Arguing that every trick should be structured like the cups and balls is ridiculous. Its like saying every film should have a car chase in the final reel because audiences like car chases. There are lots of film makers who would make that argument, and Im sure many of them are rich. It doesnt make any of them right.

[Bill Duncan]

However, technical skill, when combined with a winning personality and an above average presentation ability can produce miracles - ref Williamson, Malone, Wonder or Levand.

Ian,
Thanks for that.

[Nathan Muir]

Ian, if the audience knows it's technical - and you're not there to teach them - then something is very wrong IMHO.

Jonathan - if they think it's not technical (in the sense that it requires special skills), then they'll probably assume you lack skill and are using a special deck which, if they had the secret, they also could pull off.

What to do, what to do? Cognitive dissonance!

[Ian Kendall]

Skill does not need to be overt; consider a card routine such as an Ambitious card ending in a card to wallet (or similar). This may contain a couple of shifts, a couple of top changes, perhaps some false lifts and a palm or two.

Some would consider this type of routine 'technical', but many of the moves needed can be done covertly.

The problem seems to be that many of the overly technical routines are long, repetitive and lack a useful hook upon which to hang your presentation. Nothing to do with the skill required being noticable.

Ian

[Jonathan Townsend]

Ian, if the audience knows it's technical - and you're not there to teach them - then something is very wrong IMHO.

Jonathan - if they think it's not technical (in the sense that it requires special skills), then they'll probably assume you lack skill and are using a special deck which, if they had the secret, they also could pull off.

What to do, what to do? Cognitive dissonance!

There's a big difference between what they rationally know if they happen to think about it and what they are thinking/feeling during the performance. They should feel that they know we are not actually sucking the innocence out of the room and using their confusion and awe to charge special batteries to prepare a way for the old ones to retake the earth.

Similarly IMHO there's gotta be something in it for the audience to enjoy beyond just watching Cartman's Tea Party.

IMHO something has to be at cause for the magical events. For example if the performer is going to make that claim it would help to give the audience some cues for when the performer is supposed to be making the magic happen. It helps to make sure the frame and script includes something to account for the magic. Just what's supposed to be happening? Is the piece about the performer exercising direct control over the location of cards (and if so by words, gesture, gaze or simple will?), an enchanted deck, a hypnotized audience, a parallel construction where the props happen to follow a story as it's being told, irregular shifts between alternate realities that the performer happens to know about in advance much like folks used to ogle at eclipse predictions....

Let's start with deciding we don't want to hold the audience hostage via a selected card and using Stockholm Syndrome to get them to appreciate our skillz.

[mrgoat]

Yes - but my point was he (Al Schneider) still ended his cups and balls routine with the large loads.

The Cups and Balls is a trick in which large somethings are produced from under inverted somethings. Everything that precedes the loads is what Hitchcock used to call a MacGuffin.

The phases which lead up to the production sequence exist to focus all eyes on the space where the production will take place, and to ensure, that every member of the audience knows there is nothing under the cups before there IS something under the cups.
Arguing that every trick should be structured like the cups and balls is ridiculous. Its like saying every film should have a car chase in the final reel because audiences like car chases. There are lots of film makers who would make that argument, and Im sure many of them are rich. It doesnt make any of them right.

I don't know much about the history of the cups and balls. Was it ever done without the large loads at the end?

[Jonathan Townsend]

I don't know much about the history of the cups and balls. Was it ever done without the large loads at the end?

Certainly, look up the Roman times description by Alcephron.
http://www.elfinspell.com/Alciphron3.html

LETTER XX.

NAPAEUS TO CRENIADES.
... someone took me to the theatre, where he put me into a good place, and gave me a treat of all kinds of spectacles. Although I forgot what else I saw since I am not at all clever at understanding or giving an account of such things I remember one thing, which struck me dumb with astonishment. A man came forward with a three-legged table. On this he place three little cups, under which he hid some little round white pebbles, such as we find on the bank of a torrent. At one time he put them separately, one under each cup; at another time he showed them, all together, under one cup; then he made them disappear from the cups, I dont know how, and showed them, the next moment, in his mouth. After this he swallowed them, called some of the spectators on to the platform, and pulled out of their nose, head, and ears the pebbles which he ended by juggling away altogether. ...

IE the applause cue was make the three balls vanish completely.

[David Alexander]

This is just another version of the art vs commerce argument with the artistes claiming authority over what is real or good while those who toil in the trenches actually doing the work are looked down upon for commercializing the art. It is a boring waste of time.

There are a few who combine both art and commerce and do it beautifully and successfully. Don Alan was one. His act is worthy of study and the Racherbaumer book on Dons work is a fine learning tool to study his approach, especially his superb timing.

I would value the opinion of several people named when discussing technique but would give their opinions far less credit when it came to presentation and entertainment value as they primarily entertained amateur magicians, not lay audiences.

The true skill of the magician lies in the creation of the illusion of magic in the mind of the spectator. How this is accomplished a well-disguised self-working effecta mechanical deckadvanced sleight-of-hand is far less important than the creation of the illusion (the effect) and the entertainment derived from the presentation.

[Glenn Bishop]

I think Dom nailed the difference between the cups and matrix.

I don't think he did because it was from a magicians point of view. I have found after performing magic for the lay audience for more than 35 years. Having booked and performed close up magic in over 87 different bars - night clubs and restaurants.

Having performed close up magic shows in restaurants thousands and thousands of times.

Here is my opinion.

When entertaining the lay audience it is good to look at magic from the lay audience point of view. One of the problems I see that many - many magicians run into is that they look at magic from the point of view of a magician.

The lay audience sees magic very differently.

I have talked to the lay audience - and to some the cups and balls and the big loads - and the matrix and then the big coins - they are what I will call a happening of magic.

To them that is what a magician does. Magician enters - then does happenings of magic.

It is only the magician that can take the technical side of both matrix and the cups and balls and do what I call - splitting hairs and then come up with some sort of theory as many over think what another magician is getting away with while they perform magic.

Jack Pyle used to produce a rabbit from the knotted silks trick as a final to his show. If a magician might think about it where is the logic? Well magic is an art and in art there doesn't have to be logic because the rabbit production is a happening of magic and that is what magicians do - happenings of magic.

Don Alan did routines with small things coins - sponge balls - small balls under some upside-down object. A hat - a cup a bowl then something big was produced - a ball barring - a large ball and a large nut.

What has the large nut have to do with the coin routine?

Nothing - but the production of the big nut was a strong happening of magic. And that is what magicians do - strong happenings of magic - aside from entertaining the audience with humor - a warm personality and they make magic fun to watch.

Don Alans opinion of magic without that climax - by the way - was that without that punch finish - that strong happening of magic all that the magic is and what the magician does is just a puzzle.

Getting back to what my Dad said he saw Vernon do and that was to climax the travelers routine with the LePaul Card Envelope. That was a strong lead in routine to a strong happening of magic.

Just as my dad did the same routine using a business card wallet instead of the envelope.

If anyone chooses not to do magic this way fine. But having done magic for quite a long time. I would choose to do a nice entertaining lead in to a strong happening of magic. Just the way I have been doing magic for many years and as I did it last night at one of the many restaurants I perform at each year.

[Ian Kendall]

I'm not denying that different magicians have different perspectives - that would be daft. However, I believe Dom pointed out the difference between an effect, and a routine of several effects.

As for left field kickers, I've never been a fan of them. I realise that I may be in a minority here, but they have always seemed to me to fall into the 'gotcha' branch of magic, which is a cousin of 'challenge' effects which these days leave me cold. Now, the appearance of a large nut at the end of a Benson bowl routine may be startling, but it lacks any logic and jars with the previous premise of the routine.

I remember seeing Paul Gernter perform at Blackpool umpteen years ago. During the close up show he performed his Cups routine, and (I think) a dice routine. Both of these ended with the production of an object that was _too big_ to fit into the recepticle - either the large ball bearing or a large die. I remember thinking that this seemed odd for such a performer - it is one thing to cause objects to appear under cups, but another just to have something 'appear', albeit supposedly from under the cup.

Glenn - it is good that you have listened to your audiences over the years, and have formulated an approach that works for you. However, remember that many others here have also spent years in the trenches, and we have an idea of what works for us. It is important not to dismiss others' ideas simply because they do not fit in with your own.

Take care, Ian

[Glenn Bishop]

As for left field kickers, I've never been a fan of them. I realise that I may be in a minority here, but they have always seemed to me to fall into the 'gotcha' branch of magic, which is a cousin of 'challenge' effects which these days leave me cold. Now, the appearance of a large nut at the end of a Benson bowl routine may be startling, but it lacks any logic and jars with the previous premise of the routine.

Speaking from the magician point of view I agree with you 100%. But speaking from the performer point of view things like that are a happening of magic. They can work!

By the way I like very much the way you explained it.

Glenn - it is good that you have listened to your audiences over the years, and have formulated an approach that works for you. However, remember that many others here have also spent years in the trenches, and we have an idea of what works for us. It is important not to dismiss others' ideas simply because they do not fit in with your own.

Take care, Ian

I don't dismiss other ideas and here is why.

Ideas that may not work today and if they do not work today that doesnt make them a bad idea because they might work tomorrow. I look at it like reading a book. I get a lot of great ideas from re-reading the same magic books over years.

I have always enjoyed reading your posting Ian.

Just my opinion.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Doves and puppies it is then

[NCMarsh]

Ir's also worth mentioning that, on his DVD, Al Schneider does not end his matrix with a giant coin; so while he may have told Glenn he could end it how he wanted, it looks like he was not persuaded to do it himself.

Yes - but my point was he still ended his cups and balls routine with the large loads.

Someone, and I wish I could cite them but have forgotten the source, said that the key to narrative writing was to surprise the audience in a predictable way

That is, that they don't see the ending coming while they're watching...but, once it happens, it makes sense in retrospect

I think the same principle applies to kickers

The final load ending the cups and balls is just such a predictable surprise...the entire trick, as the audience experiences it, is "surprising, impossible things are revealed when you lift the cups"

What happens to things when we can't see them? It's a basic, child-like curiosity that the Cups play with, the routine is a kind of hide-and-seek, peek-a-boo show...every time we get to see under the cups, something has impossibly changed...where there was nothing, now there's a ball...where there was a ball, now there are two...

Thus, the final loads -- which are totally unexpected at the time -- make sense as the ultimate fulfillment of "when you look under the cups, you find something impossible"...as now the cups are filled with impossibly large objects

(as a sidenote, this is a big reason why versions with clear cups suck: it's hide and seek without the hide...and just as "The Blair Witch Project" was more terrifying than any other monster/witch movie I've seen, because the witch isn't seen, but her presence felt, so there is no limit on how terrifying she looks and my imagination is engaged, opaque cups are FAR more magical because I'm left to visualize/wonder what it looks like when the balls appear, and this takes on no firm, fixed, limited form)

N.

[David Alexander]

Now, the appearance of a large nut at the end of a Benson bowl routine may be startling, but it lacks any logic and jars with the previous premise of the routine.

And somehow the appearance of a bagel, or more accurately a hard shiny roll' which was the original climax of the routine in the original description, fits into the "logic" of the appearance and disappearance of sponge balls?

By the way, that's how Don Allan did it originally.

[David Alexander]

The concept is "Novelty into Suprise."

With a well-crafted Cups and Balls routine (I've always done Vernon's) the novelty is the performer's apparent ability to move the little balls under, around, or through various cups without anyone seeing them moved.

After this has been done several times the novelty has been demonstrated without boring the audience. The Novelty leads into Surprise with the revelation of the large balls or fruit or baby chicks under the cups. Fail to surprise an audience and you fail in your role as a magician.

[Richard Kaufman]

There is no "witch" in the Blair Witch Project. It's a bunch of people running around whining and acting like ninnies until they finally end up a basement and see someone standing facing the wall. Now THERE was a dimwit movie where nothing happened and a climax (even if it made no sense) would have been greatly appreciated because at least SOMETHING would have happened.

[John M. Dale]

As for left field kickers, I've never been a fan of them. I realise that I may be in a minority here, but they have always seemed to me to fall into the 'gotcha' branch of magic, which is a cousin of 'challenge' effects which these days leave me cold. Now, the appearance of a large nut at the end of a Benson bowl routine may be startling, but it lacks any logic and jars with the previous premise of the routine.

Ian,

While I understand your point and agree that kickers can be overdone.

Do you feel the same way about Max Malini's Block of Ice production? There is no logic for it to appear after covering a spinning coin with his hat & asking, "Heads or Tails?"

It does seem to be one of the things for which he's most remembered.

JMD

[Jonathan Townsend]

Remembered by who?

[David Alexander]

Remembered by who?

Having met a number of people in the 1960s who either knew Malini or saw him perform, they remembered him quite clearly. Since it is highly unlikely that there is anyone left alive who saw him work (he died over 60 years ago) the only people who would "remember" him would be magicians who studied his work.

Having done the block of ice production both on television and at selected performances I can assure you that while it lacks the "logic" some amateurs demand, it stuns audiences.

[Bill Duncan]

Someone, and I wish I could cite them but have forgotten the source, said that the key to narrative writing was to surprise the audience in a predictable way

Which is why David Regal's Cups and Balls and Cups and Balls is both a commercial effect, and a brilliantly artistic creation. Just as Picasso's Bull's Head from a bicycle seat is obvious after the fact, it took an artist to see it, and to show it to us.