Magic in their hands

[Mr Hurley]

The premise of a spectator having a very involved part in a routine, I believe, sounds like an interesting idea in making a stronger impact and effect. Namely, I'm thinking of effects such as 'Shuffling Lesson' & 'Out of this World'.

At the very least, are effects that involve heavy spectator involvement worth learning and/or creating from scratch? Or will there always be the notion with the spectator that *something* has happened? Is this sort of concept more of an elaborate sucker trick?

[Richard Kaufman]

Magic which happens in the spectators hands is always among the strongest types of magic you can perform. That's why everybody does SpongeBall magic.

[performer]

In close up magic spectator involvement is VERY important! Without it you may as well not bother. It is true that tricks are much stronger if they happen in the other person's hands but I don't just mean that. After all not every trick (in fact most) is one that caters to this. However, even for tricks where involvement is not required I deliberately MAKE it apply. You can do this by asking someone a question or make them say a magic word for example. Perhaps blow on a card or something. I don't care what a trick is you can involve a spectator somehow. Get them to snap their fingers or something---I have no idea but BRING THEM INTO IT!

I don't understand the concept that Mr Hurley has stated about people thinking that "something" has happened. That is more likely to occur when the props are NOT in the hands of the spectator. In fact I don't think I quite comprehend his last paragraph at all. I don't follow what sucker tricks have to do with it. As for "creating from scratch" he shouldn't do this anyway if he has only been in magic for a year. You have to know what you are doing first.

[Mr Hurley]

In close up magic spectator involvement is VERY important! Without it you may as well not bother.

Completely agree.

It is true that tricks are much stronger if they happen in the other person's hands but I don't just mean that. After all not every trick (in fact most) is one that caters to this. However, even for tricks where involvement is not required I deliberately MAKE it apply. You can do this by asking someone a question or make them say a magic word for example. Perhaps blow on a card or something. I don't care what a trick is you can involve a spectator somehow. Get them to snap their fingers or something---I have no idea but BRING THEM INTO IT!

I completely agree that they need to be involved in some way shape or form.
I'm trying to see if tricks that have heavy involvement, as opposed to working in involvement, are worth eventually learning and placing time into.

I don't understand the concept that Mr Hurley has stated about people thinking that "something" has happened

It's paranoia

That is more likely to occur when the props are NOT in the hands of the spectator. In fact I don't think I quite comprehend his last paragraph at all. I don't follow what sucker tricks have to do with it.

The thought is that, for example, you go all the way through something like 'Out of this World'; performance, patter, everything is on point. End of the trick, all they think of is that you stacked the deck or did *something* and that all you did was waste their time.

As for "creating from scratch" he shouldn't do this anyway if he has only been in magic for a year. You have to know what you are doing first.

The whole thing is a hypothetical question if a certain aspect that can be applied within tricks is eventually worth mining into.
I'm not sure how you think, after the whole 'Raise Rise' thread, that (at the end of it) I go from asking about book recommendations (I ordered 'Expert Card Technique, by the way), only to turn around two days later thinking I can engineer card tricks.

[performer]

This is all too much for my aged brain to focus on. However, I will say one thing. Out of This World is a fantastic card trick and may possibly be the greatest card trick of all time. Providing of course it hasn't been exposed to death on the internet.

The reaction is often stunned silence. And it is the trick people will talk about for years afterwards if you do it properly. It is the trick they will remember you by.

No. They won't think you "did something". They will NOT think you stacked the deck. I don't like to talk about this on a site that comes up on search engines but I assume you know there are ways of shuffling the deck so this option does not occur to spectators. And of course you can get THEM to shuffle the deck once the first half is dealt out. Since they are all one colour anyway it won't make the blindest bit of difference.

And I use the little known George Blake method where you TELL them you are stacking the deck! I won't go into that here though.

Your term "sucker trick" confused me because you are not using it in the way that it is normally used by magicians. A "sucker trick" is generally known as a trick which looks as if it has gone wrong with the magician having egg on his face but he soon turns the tables and ends triumphant.

And the term "something has happened" generally refers to the notion of someone doing a fair bit of sleight of hand and although the spectator does not know exactly what happened he knows "something has happened". In other words the spectator suspects sleight of hand although he is not sure what that sleight of hand consisted of. He just knows "something has happened"

It was your definitions that confused me.

[Mr Hurley]

This is all too much for my aged brain to focus on. However, I will say one thing. Out of This World is a fantastic card trick and may possibly be the greatest card trick of all time. Providing of course it hasn't been exposed to death on the internet.

The reaction is often stunned silence. And it is the trick people will talk about for years afterwards if you do it properly. It is the trick they will remember you by.

Thank you. That is good to know. Up to this point, I have only been able to perform a little bit for friends and family with only Tenyo and prop magic. I'm slowly branching out into other forms of magic (and now, reading material!) because I want to at least have a well versed knowledge of more conventional magic for when I will need to perform for a more adult audience. Because it WILL happen whether I'd like to or not, (at the moment, I only want to perform for children).

So far, in the year I've been in magic, (when I haven't been watching Ray Kosby DVDs) I've been tinkering around and routining with Tenyo for a magic show for a children's hospital because that's where I want to perform. I won't ever be able to hold a steady job, much less one where I can perform as an entertainer as a trade. However, I do not think it hurt to learn to perform for adults and expand my knowledge to be able to do so, if the situation would present itself; I'd like to be ready to do so. I'll never be able to go professional, that doesn't mean I can't perform like one.

Anyway, I apologize for getting off topic.

No. They won't think you "did something". They will NOT think you stacked the deck. I don't like to talk about this on a site that comes up on search engines but I assume you know there are ways of shuffling the deck so this option does not occur to spectators. And of course you can get THEM to shuffle the deck once the first half is dealt out. Since they are all one colour anyway it won't make the blindest bit of difference.

I know OF ways that you can do things like that with a deck. I have seen (and know) 'louder', flourishy ways that it can be done. But I'd much rather learn proper, conventional methods that do not distract from performing. As that only brings attention to something that they shouldn't be paying attention to in the first place.

And I use the little known George Blake method where you TELL them you are stacking the deck! I won't go into that here though.

Completely respect why you won't go into it here.

Your term "sucker trick" confused me because you are not using it in the way that it is normally used by magicians. A "sucker trick" is generally known as a trick which looks as if it has gone wrong with the magician having egg on his face but he soon turns the tables and ends triumphant.

And the term "something has happened" generally refers to the notion of someone doing a fair bit of sleight of hand and although the spectator does not know exactly what happened he knows "something has happened". In other words the spectator suspects sleight of hand although he is not sure what that sleight of hand consisted of. He just knows "something has happened"

It was your definitions that confused me.

I really apologize for that. I thought I had the definitions lined up in my head. I will work on that (and other odd vernacular I have formed out of bad habit) for future posts.

[performer]

I hate having to describe things in such a way that it won't come up on a search engine. There are ways of shuffling cards so that the order of the deck is maintained and they are not flashy or flourishy in the slighest. I won't go into further detail. As soon as you start to study card magic you will find out what they are soon enough.

There are methods in "Expert Card Technique" but I do not believe this is book you should read at your stage of development. The tricks and sleights are very difficult indeed. I recommend it mainly for the presentation section in the back.

If you want to entertain children with close up magic then there is a very good book on the subject which alas must be out of print by now. However, you can purchase virtually anything on the internet. It is called "How to entertain children with magic you can do" I think I have the title right but knowing me I could be wrong. However I do know for sure the author's name is Clayton Rawson.

If you want to entertain children in a stand up situation such as a birthday party then it is a whole new ball game. Entertaining children is virtually a different art form to entertaining adults and different rules apply. It has to be approached in a different way. The two are not the same in any way.

[Mr Hurley]

I hate having to describe things in such a way that it won't come up on a search engine. There are ways of shuffling cards so that the order of the deck is maintained and they are not flashy or flourishy in the slighest. I won't go into further detail. As soon as you start to study card magic you will find out what they are soon enough.

Agreed. That type of shuffling isn't exactly a high priority for me right now and I'll get to it as soon as it pops up in the books.

There are methods in "Expert Card Technique" but I do not believe this is book you should read at your stage of development. The tricks and sleights are very difficult indeed. I recommend it mainly for the presentation section in the back.

I'm getting it for the presentation section. I'm still going to look over it all anyway, but I want to see what the performance section has to offer.

If you want to entertain children with close up magic then there is a very good book on the subject which alas must be out of print by now. However, you can purchase virtually anything on the internet. It is called "How to entertain children with magic you can do" I think I have the title right but knowing me I could be wrong. However I do know for sure the author's name is Clayton Rawson.

You got the title right. I see a couple copies on Ebay for rather cheap.
So far, I've seen that it contains a heavy assortment of magic tricks to use for kids. Is it just that? Or does it also contain theory and guidance for close-up kids magic?

If you want to entertain children in a stand up situation such as a birthday party then it is a whole new ball game. Entertaining children is virtually a different art form to entertaining adults and different rules apply. It has to be approached in a different way. The two are not the same in any way.

Oh yes, I've looked up a bit on how presenting to children and adults are extremely different. Character, patter, presentation, what (typically) works better between the two, what doesn't work as well. I would think the more difficult thing to do is have a way to adapt to various audiences, but only work with what is on you. Although nothing is impossible in magic, there's probably an ingenious way to utilizing 'Magic Coloring Book' to a room of adults. Not advisable, but there's a way.

I will say that I don't see myself ever doing stage work, I know that sounds like an absolute statement considering how little I've been in magic. Both close-up and stage have their advantages and disadvantages. But I believe I can play better towards the close-up side of things.

[Richard Kaufman]

If you want to learn how to work for kids, then you should buy "Seriously Silly," which I published some years ago. Written by David Kaye.

[Mr Hurley]

If you want to learn how to work for kids, then you should buy "Seriously Silly," which I published some years ago. Written by David Kaye.

Oh man, this required literature list of mine is stacking up by the day.

And I'm still trying to find a way to get Tenyoism

[performer]

The Rawson book is mostly made up of close up tricks which despite the title would work quite well for adults too. I suspect the title was devised for marketing purposes. There is not really much on how to present magic for kids although in the foreword there is a terrific idea for quietening noisy kids which I have used for my entire performing life. You simply say "The quietest one can help me do the next trick"

Instant silence.

The key to kid show work is to make the little bastards laugh. Sure you can make the kids gasp with wonder but I tend to wonder why. Kids like the silliness and the comedy rather than be terribly impressed with strong magic.

I am going to stack your book list even further by recommending a terribly famous British book on the subject. Actually I suspect it is only famous in Britain. It is called "Open Sesame" by Eric Lewis and Wilfrid Tyler and is available from Magic Books by Post. It was written a long, long time ago but the advice in the opening chapter is just as relevant now as it was then.

Read the rest of the book which may or may not be useful to you and I suspect the latter will be more likely than the former. However it is the opening chapter that you need to buy the book for. The words written there are the most important words ever written in magic history (my opinion only) on the art of entertaining children. It will show you how to understand childre and once you have that basic understanding you will know how to entertain them.

I had never done a kid show in my life. I went into a Chinese Restaurant alone and while eating read the opening chapter. When I left the restaurant I had become a children's entertainer and I had never even done a single show.

At one time this was the Bible of kid show magicians in the UK. Alas I have seen some horrendous videos of British kid show entertainers lately and I am quite horrified at how the standards have gone down. I can hardly believe it. I bet this horrible lot that are around nowadays have never even heard of Open Sesame let alone read it.

[Mr Hurley]

I am going to stack your book list even further by recommending a terribly famous British book on the subject. Actually I suspect it is only famous in Britain. It is called "Open Sesame" by Eric Lewis and Wilfrid Tyler and is available from Magic Books by Post. It was written a long, long time ago but the advice in the opening chapter is just as relevant now as it was then.

I really shouldn't be so surprised that there's a lot of reading material for any type of work in magic. But I am.
I did find "Open Seasame" on Amazon. Haven't got it yet, but considering that I have a higher emphasis on performance guidance; it's near the top of the list.

I had never done a kid show in my life. I went into a Chinese Restaurant alone and while eating read the opening chapter. When I left the restaurant I had become a children's entertainer and I had never even done a single show.

At one time this was the Bible of kid show magicians in the UK. Alas I have seen some horrendous videos of British kid show entertainers lately and I am quite horrified at how the standards have gone down. I can hardly believe it. I bet this horrible lot that are around nowadays have never even heard of Open Sesame let alone read it.

That's crazy! I could have sworn you said in a post that you have done kids shows.
With what you have stated, I guess that renders my previous sentence irrelevant.

If I may ask, and pick your brain some more: What makes these British kid show entertainers horrifying?

[performer]

You misunderstood what I said. I have been doing kid shows for many years. What I meant was that at the beginning I knew nothing about the subject but had taken that book into a restaurant without ever having done a show but when I left after reading the important opening chapter I had become a kid show magician since I understood the underlying thinking.

I meant that metaphysically I had become a kid show magician since I knew the way forward. I just knew exactly what to do. I had gone into the restaurant as a novice and came out as an expert!

One week later I did my first show. Alas it was not a small birthday party which would have been preferable. When I arrived there was about a hundred kids there all running around the room screaming and shouting. I immediately took fright and decided on the spot to end my kid show career before it had even started. I decided to do something very unprofessional and sneak out never to be seen again. I knew my name would be mud but since I am an unprincipled scoundrel anyway that didn't worry me too much since I am quite used to that sort of thing.

I looked for the nearest exit door but alas it was on the other side of the room and it would have been difficult to push my way through the crowded throng with all my props unnoticed. I was trapped in one corner of the room with no escape route. Therefore I was forced to do the show whether I liked it or not.

It was a terrific success and I have never looked back.

Now as to the awfulness of UK kid show entertainers, when I lived in Britain the standard was very high indeed. I remember many wonderful kid show workers. However, the standard seems to have gone down dramatically if any of the videos I have been watching lately are anything to go by. I haven't seen a video yet of anyone any good in the way they used to be and am quite horrified by it.

I abhor the practice of posting clips of individual people for the purpose of criticism and ridicule but since this is a television production showing many people without singling anyone out I feel justified in posting this as an example of how horrific the standard is nowadays:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uikzWzaVccQ

[Mr Hurley]

I apologize for the misinterpretation.

That is rather amazing that the opening chapter provides that much insight.

And the video. Oh dear. That was a tough one to watch. An interesting learning exercise.

- I know everybody is fighting their own fight, but you have to hang that up for the time you're performing.
- If you have anyone come up on stage, focus is completely on THEM (thinking about the whole 'spinning table' thing)...Or have better 'involvement' methods.
- No going to the pub in character. I don't drink anyway, but
- No cursing or being crass to your audience.
- have proper methods of audience control so you're not packing up early, complaining about your audience and looking like a muppet.


Did I miss anything?

[Bill Duncan]

A simple question: As a human, would you prefer to have a conversation, or just listen while someone talks to (or at) you?

I suspect layman feel just like you do.

And Richard is right. EVERYONE should ready David Kaye's excellent book. I'm not a kids performer and have no interest in being one. But David's lecture is among the best I've seen, and his understanding of audiences is second to none.

[performer]

I wasn't aware that magicians were "human" and I have never regarded them as such but perhaps that is another conversation for another time.

I am not sure what Mr Duncan means by people talking to or at you. With kid show entertainment you can't avoid having a conversation with the kids whether you like it or not. But perhaps the gentleman means something else. Perhaps a little clarification would help.

I have mixed feelings about the David Kaye book. I find him to be very intelligent and he seems to be the only American kid show entertainer I have come across who understands why the British school of kid show work is different from the American way of doing things. I believe he has gone over to the British way now and quite right too. I wish British kid show workers would go over to the British way too but alas they don't any more. I can't believe they are so awful nowadays.

But back to David Kaye and his book. Some of it I approve of and some of it I don't, particularly some of the more vulgar aspects of his philosophy. It is true that kids love vulgarity but I don't always feel that you should give them what they want. It is the parents that pay you after all. In any case even if the parents like it (and I suspect they don't) I do not consider it to be advisable when entertaining children.

Of course I have always been a very wholesome person and have often wondered why I have not been nominated for sainthood.

[Harry Lorayne]

Don't know how this moved from shuffling cards and etc., to kids magic. Anyway, just wanted to say that one of the reasons I devised OUT OF THIS UNIVERSE (only ONE) is so that the SPECTATOR SHUFFLES MANY TIMES.

[performer]

I did try OUT OF THIS UNIVERSE when I was younger but somehow couldn't get the same effect as the regular OUT OF THIS WORLD and gave it up. Perhaps it just didn't suit my personality somehow. I have no idea why I couldn't get the right reaction because it is a pretty good variation.

Having said that years later I saw Darwin Ortiz on the Magic Cafe say something about it which may have perhaps given a bit of a clue where I was going wrong. He said the premise wasn't a semi/clairvoyant premise like the Paul Curry version but was more a premise of the deck somehow coming into an organised sequence after all that shuffling. Something like that anyway. It made quite a bit of sense and I wish I had realised that when I originally learned it.

Too late for me now though. I just stick to the regular Paul Curry version and it works very well for me.

[Harry Lorayne]

Never too late.

[performer]

OK. I'll try it again for old times sake. This time with a different mind set. I have to think of it as a "system out of chaos" trick rather than an Out of This World type trick.

[Bill Duncan]

I am not sure what Mr Duncan means by people talking to or at you. With kid show entertainment you can't avoid having a conversation with the kids whether you like it or not. But perhaps the gentleman means something else. Perhaps a little clarification would help.

OK. Here goes:

The reason sponge balls are so successful is that unlike the stuff most often done by close up magicians, they actively involve the spectator in a conversation.

Magic that happens "in their hands" forces the magician to look up from the deck, speak to their spectators, and listen to what they say...

[performer]

Thank you. Now I understand.