Larry Jennings - Oil and Water - variations needed

[Curtis Kam]

Nathan,

I appreciate your desire to be taken as a sincere student, if not a scholar, of these things, and in support of that goal offer the following:

This pause was certainly a conscious choice of Larry's -- I have never argued otherwise.

Tommy's performance in this video also illustrates the difference between the expert use of the dramatic pause and the empty pause of Jennings' performance. Tommy doesn't just sit back and count off an arbitrary number...

I don't get it. Are you not comparing the two performances? Don't you mean to say that the Wonder pause was dramatic while the Jennings pause was empty? If Tommy didn't "just sit back and count off an arbitrary number" aren't you saying that Jennings did, and therefore came up "empty"? You do realize that "sitting back and counting off an arbitrary number" is quite a bit different from making a conscious choice.

Further, when you continue to say:

...an effective performer will use both at different times -- consciously choosing the one that works best for the particular act of magic in question.

In a discussion where you clearly think that this is not what Mr. Jennings did, I believe I have read you properly. If you meant to say that Larry Jennings failed to make the conscious choice an effective performer would have, congratulations, that's what you did. If you never meant to say that, then perhaps this was a poor choice of words.

Parenthetically, I don't think you mean to use the word "inductions" as you did. Perhaps "assertions" or "conclusions"? ("induction" is a noun, meaning "the act of inducing". A "conclusion" is the result of one's inductive reasoning)

and with regard to: "Again, the argument is destroyed upon being made explicit."

Sure, whatever you say.

[NCMarsh]

Curtis,

I don't get it. Are you not comparing the two performances? Don't you mean to say that the Wonder pause was dramatic while the Jennings pause was empty?

I am absolutely comparing the performances and drawing the conclusions that you state. We're on the same page so far.

If Tommy didn't "just sit back and count off an arbitrary number" aren't you saying that Jennings did, and therefore came up "empty"?

Yes. If memory serves (and it has been a few years), Jennings says that before the climax of each phase he silently counts a particular number of beats. This number may not be arbitrary insofar as he may have a particular reason for counting this many beats as opposed to another number -- however, as I remember him presenting it, there is no organic connection between that particular number of beats and the excitement of the particular audience or the placement of the particular phase (i.e. we would hope that our audiences care more as the routine progresses, such that they care most about the climax -- and the wave that precedes that climax builds for a longer period than the previous waves.)

You do realize that "sitting back and counting off an arbitrary number" is quite a bit different from making a conscious choice.

Absolutely not! Jennings is pausing because he believes that his pause -- at that moment -- strengthens the routine. This is an intentional choice and the intentional charachter of the pause itself has nothing to do with (what I feel is) the arbitrariness of the duration of the pause.

Further, conscious choices can certainly be incorrect choices. I hold that the inordinate length of the pause dillutes the contrast between the initial and final conditions. It certainly isn't Jennings' intention to dilute the impact of the magic -- but he has decided (consciously!) to pause, and I hold that the dilution of the impact is a consequence of that decision.

If you meant to say that Larry Jennings failed to make the conscious choice an effective performer would have, congratulations, that's what you did.

Yes, I do think that Larry Jennings failed to make the conscious choice an effective performer would have.

This does not mean, however, that Jennings did not make a conscious choice, and it certainly doesn't mean that he is an ineffective performer. What it does mean, to revert to an Aristotelian analysis, is that he was not "being-at-work-staying-himself" as an effective performer at that particular moment in that particular performance.

If you insist that an "effective performer" is one who always makes the decision that an effective performer would make -- in every routine and during every performance -- then yes, weighed against that impossible standard Larry would be an "ineffective performer"...but so would anyone who has ever stood in front of an audience or ever will stand in front of an audience...

Parenthetically, I don't think you mean to use the word "inductions" as you did. Perhaps "assertions" or "conclusions"? ("induction" is a noun, meaning "the act of inducing". A "conclusion" is the result of one's inductive reasoning)

I was attempting to emphasize the inductive, rather than deductive, character of those particular claims as I saw them (inductive claims being probable rather than necessary).

The big point is this: though I think that Jennings' performance of a particular piece suffered because of an incorrect choice in a single detail, this says nothing about Larry's tremendous virtues as a performer and creator.


warmly,

N.
IllusionArtistry.com

[Vraagaard]

Originally posted by scorch:
[I can see your point. But it's not "guilt" so much that I personally shy away from acting like it's "real magic," with the "if I just snap my fingers" magical gestures, etc. I minimize the magical gesture stuff not because I feel guilty that it's not true, but because A. It is all so horribly cliched, and B. the expectation of today's audiences are different than they were a hundred, fifty, or even ten years ago.

For instance, in Twisting the Aces the "magical" motion of twisting the packet around like that is beautiful because it fits so perfectly with the theme of the trick, and helps the sense of theater. But you don't have to play it straight like it's a magical gesture. You can just do it and let the power of the effect itself work on the audience, and let them draw their own conclusions about it. Ultimately, that is what great art does anyway. It does not tell the audience what to think (i.e., "real magic" is happening in that instance), but rather it draws them in, resonates with them, and they have their OWN response to the performance.

[/QB]

Scorch, I believe that we are in agreence, not that it matters, but just to straigthen it out. And yur poitn about Twisting the Aces is so so right. Thats also why I wrote, that we need to find the all important balance - by that I meant to only use the magical gestures in a limited and balanced way. Don't get me wrong. I'm not going on stage and present my self as doing real magic, I do not cast shadows and constantly snap my fingers saying abra cadabra. I do it in a subtle way, very low key.

However what I really try to do constantly is deep inside pretend that magic is happening. Example, when I vanish a coin, after sneaking it away, I still really pretend its in my fist, and I really pretend that it vanishes magically (inside my head that is - not explicit or verbally saying it). I believe my body language is totally different when I really pretend this, and that my body language is in some way transmitting the magic and telling the story to the audience. At least I get better spectator reactions from this "internal pretending process". So its actually not the explicit gestures and moves I make - its more a mental state during the performance. You se by pretending that the coin is theere in my hand, my misdirection becomes stronger, because my bodu language is also showing implicitly that the coin is still there. By pretending the actual vanish, my eyes lit up and my face shows a subtle (and not a mechanical) astonishment when I open my hand - note: I do not mean a huge theatrical astonishment - but just a subtle astonishment in the corner of my eyes and in my face. Its about living myself into the role of magic. I hope this is clear - because its a little difficult to explain. Have you ever seen a magician performing magic, doing it in a mechanical way, not even being amazed himself about the revelation/production. His body language is like "just another day at the office" - boring. No we need to show the passion when we are performing - we need to play theater in a subtle way that suits our persona - thats why Tommy Wonder is being refrenced in this and many other discussions - his act is pure magic and that has a lot to do with his very subtle acting the magic out style.

Now here is the ultimate challenge in pretending magic as "an internal process" to enhance your body language. It's pretty easy to pretend magic "inside your head" when you are vanishing a hank, or when the cards are seperating in an oil and water effect. Try that and see how it works. The try to do that throughout a full version of a cups and balls routine - now thats a challenge. I try this during practice and performance of cups and balls. I never managed to pretend that in every phase, because so much is going on in terms of handling and patter and audience interaction at the same time in that routine. But I try to do it with every vanish and production in the routine - I love this routine - it's the entertainment highlight of my close up act - and its my ultimate challenge of "pretending the magic as an internal process".

Again, the best articles I read about this subject is Mr. Osterlinds essay "Making magic real" - that essay will enhance your magic with 50% if you choose to work with it. can be downloaded in pdf from his website http://www.osterlindmysteries.com/products.htm . I cannot recommend this essay enough - it had a huge impact on my act.

And thanks for the discussion - it really brought my mind back to what is essential to me - and I belive that there is loads of good valuable inputs in this discussion thread. It's always good to see things from a lot of angles - it shows me that there is not only one way - and magic is not a religion - we can cosntantly learn from each other.

[Rafael Benatar]

Thank you, Denis, for making me aware of this thread. I'll make some comments pertaining to several things that have been posted.

I'll start with a joke from the act of Verdaguer, one of the greatest South-American stand-up comedians ever. He used it to open one of his monologues:

"They say in NY, every 5 minutes, a man is hit by a car... (pause). Poor man. How can he put up wih it..."

If you analyze that joke you'll quickly realize why it works. They make you think about a stat, then hit you in the head, not by directly telling you it's not a stat, but by taking it for granted.

The pause that I inserted in brackets was done masterfully by Verdaguer and I estimate it to last 2 seconds. If you try it out, that's a fairly long pause, considering that the tone of his voice hints you that he's going to continue. It depends on so many things, but the point is that the pause is enough to make you think of the stat (how much stuff must be going on in NY, etc.).

Back to Oil and Water, well, it's about the same thing. Just to let them think: "Are they mixed? Yes, they are." If the presentation is clean and nothing gets in the way, there's no need to be afraid of an anti-contrasting parenthesis here. Mind you, I am not suggesting that the pause should last 2 seconds. I'm only trying to determine what that pause needs to accomplish.

In Spain we tend to calll this an "assimilation pause". Like when Englissh speakers say "let the effect sink." Well, in this case it would be "let the initial situation sink."

I use 2 different versions of O&W. One of them is the Kosby-Jennings (basically as described by Jennings, but with my personal handlng and presentation). Maybe someone saw me do it last year at the Magic Castle.

The other (tabled) version I use is Ascanio's. Ascanio's routine is comprised of 3 phases and uses an extra card. I think it's a masterpiece. The third pase is done with the cards face up. A great concept but perhaps somewhat overhandled. My personal choice is to do the first 2 phases and then, thru a packet switch and a certain ploy, I go into Roy Walton's Oil and Queens.

This whole sequence is described (with Ascanio's and Walton's permission) as a bonus at the end of my cups and balls video.

Regarding that assimilation pause, Ascanio used to make a gesture with his interlocked fingers to stress the mixed nature of the cards. Apart from the gesture as such he had an ultra clever ploy that allowed him to show you six alternated cards (one card at a time) instead of eight without arousing any suspicion. At some point he stopped doing this, but I kept it.

As to whether O&W is a good effect. Juan Tamariz (who has about 60 methods) thinks it's not a good effect for laymen, or at least that's what he says. If you've seen him doing it, well... he was doing it for magicians. I personally like the effect for laymen when done at the right time.

I'm not too fond of 6-card versions. Well, Ren's one-handed is a masterpiece of performance. But, in general, I think spectators may easily perceive the notion that so little has to change to make 3 cards separate from another three. There is a certain "locked" sensation in 8-card versions that make them look more impossible.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Rafael Benatar:
...In Spain we tend to calll this an "assimilation pause". ...

How do you know when assimilation has occured?

(Real and NLP based question here - can discuss the Borg and mindeading elsewhere.)

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:

Originally posted by Rafael Benatar:
[b] ...In Spain we tend to calll this an "assimilation pause". ...

How do you know when assimilation has occured?
[/b]

Based on my acting experience, all I can really say is: if you pay attention, you can feel it.

Often in rehearsals, I'd take a relatively long pause to let a joke sink in or to allow time for a certain reaction. Many times, this pause was too long -- I noticed it, my director noticed it. It wasn't that I didn't know how long to wait. I was just testing to see how long I could wait. There's some indescribable quality that you can sense when you've paused to long, and an attentive performer will pick up on that. Once I got a sense of the timing of the pause, it was relatively easy to take the appropriate length of time (not always the same for every audience!).

-Jim

[Guest]

Originally posted by Nathan Coe Marsh:

The Structural Concept of Magic...it has been recently translated into English and is availible from many dealers -- it is also an EXTRAORDINARY work...

I've been meaning to check it out. Thanks for the added nudge.

And I absolutely endorse your pointing out how important it is to maintain a fresh and critical eye towards improving on the work of past masters. If we were limited to merely inheriting their work en toto, we'd still be stuck with yesterday's inferior methods (like doing the old traditional top change and ending up with the card clipped between different fingers of the right hand than when it started, when a superior method is now available...). In magic as in any art, we don't progress so much by reinventing the wheel as by standing on the shoulders of giants. And Jennings would have totally agreed, or else he couldn't have accomplished what he did.

Past masters are to be respect for their contributions and learned from both by examples of their strengths and weaknesses. But they are not holy relics, untouchable by the great unwashed who are still alive. I only hope that by the time I die the likes of thoughtful cardmen like Nathan will be analyzing my weaknesses for many years. That would be the ultimate flattery!

But one more question to Nathan, since I'm not familiar with the nuances of Ascanio's theory (and I'm sorry if I missed this in any of your previous posts): are you calling Jennings' pause an "anti-contrasting parenthesis" on the one hand, and Tommy Wonder's (to use our example) an effective dramatic pause on the other, merely on your own personal subjective response to it? You didn't respond to Jennings' pause so you call it one thing, but you responded to Tommy Wonder's pause so you call it another? Or is there some structural, objective distinction to be made?

Or to put it another way, how much of this is just your subjective response to Jennings in that moment, backfilled with your theoretical distinctions in retrospect, and how much of this (in your opinion) is an objective theoretical error that you can point to succinctly without referencing your own reactions? After all, we all know that different performers and performance styles resonate differently with different people. But that hardly makes for a technical error on anybody's part.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Rafael Benatar:

I'm not too fond of 6-card versions. Well, Ren's one-handed is a masterpiece of performance. But, in general, I think spectators may easily perceive the notion that so little has to change to make 3 cards separate from another three. There is a certain "locked" sensation in 8-card versions that make them look more impossible.

I agree. It reminds me of that old bar challenge trick where you line up six glasses in a row, with the first three full of beer and the second three empty. The puzzle is to figure out how you can make the glasses alternate full-empty-full-empty-etc. by moving only one of the glasses. It's an old trick for getting people to think "outside the box," and of course the answer is that you don't merely move the order of the glasses around on the table. You take the middle glass with beer in it, pour it out into the middle empty glass, and put it back where it was.

The point as it relates to the discussion is that intuitively we know that a three-card O & W effect is accomplished easily, merely the rearrangement of one card, whereas the four card sequences seem much more impossible.

[NCMarsh]

The point as it relates to the discussion is that intuitively we know that a three-card O & W effect is accomplished easily, merely the rearrangement of one card, whereas the four card sequences seem much more impossible.

The beer glass analogy illustrates that:

• when using 6 cards you cannot go from mixed to separated by moving one card
• further, it seems impossible to laymen (with whom one would be betting at the bar) that you could unmix six cards by moving just one of them

I am not sure whether I read it before or after choosing to do Kosby/Jennings/Vernon with 6 cards instead of 8...but I found John Carney's reasons for choosing six cards (he discusses the choice in the introduction to the oil and water described in Carneycopia) to be quite compelling. Some of what I say below has been influenced by Carney's thinking on the subject, so I encourage people who are going to do, or who do do, an 8 card routine to take a gander at his routine

One of the reasons that oil and water can be so excruciatingly boring is that the mixing sequences are long, and repetitive...nothing can pull you out of the moment like the constant drone of "red, black, red, black, red, black, red, black"...

I feel that eliminating the final pair does not only eliminates the actual time that it takes to name the final pair, but it dramatically reduces the amount of time that it feels like the entire display takes....series of three are, as has been commented on by so many people, very natural...three pairs creates a complete cadence of "begining, middle, end"...where a fourth pair feels piled on top of the end...

If you don't have their attention and interest -- the increased impossibility is not worth it...

I also don't think that a quadruple penetration has significantly more impact than a triple penetration...if you really want to up the impact by adding to the number of penetrations then I would suggest following the lead of Mssrs. Carney, Ortiz et alia and climax with a full deck separation which is the climax that I would use if it weren't for other considerations(I use o and w when working with Mnemonica as it is a strong trick -- not relying on stack -- that does not alter the stack (fortuitously, the bottom six cards of Tamariz' stack are 3 reds and 3 blacks...)...

I don't want to sound too docrinaire about my own aesthetic sensibilities, or seem too numerological, but I think that similar considerations come to play in determining the length of the routine...I find that the final three phases constitute a strong begining, middle, and end...and I find that the commercial value of the effect is dramatically increased because the "red, black, red, black, red, black" mixing sequence only occurs once...

Best,

N.
IllusionArtistry.com

[Curtis Kam]

Nathan,

Your audiences will wait for you to add just one more "red, back" if you make them care enough.

Rafael Benatar's do, because he does.

With regard to the number of cards used in a "magical unmixing", in general, this is a case of "more is more", within reason, of course. Certain perfomers can communicate the illusion of "magical unweaving" successfully with just six cards. However, those who do (Levand, Hollingworth, Carney) do so because this is the right number for them to communicate the illusion. They do not limit themselves to six because they're afraid the audience might get bored if they counted two more cards.

If your audience loses interest in the interweaving process, perhaps you need to rethink your presentation. Isn't the change between woven and unwoven the essence of this effect? I mean, suppose you were doing the "Ambitious Card" and the audience lost interest in whether the card is on top or not.

All that being said, I must admit that I have seen Dan Fleshman doing a four card "Oil and Water" and was surprised by how effective it was. I draw the line at a two card version, however. :)

[NCMarsh]

Curtis,

It is presumptous of you to judge my work without having seen it.

Mr. Benatar tells us that Juan Tamariz -- while loving oil and water -- does not feature it for laymen; ought we to presume from this that Juan is unable to make it interesting for laymen? Can capable and interesting performers not agree about what makes for interesting material?

If you would like to make an informed judgement of my ability to hold an audience, I would be happy to perform for you should we have occasion to meet. If, then, you find me lacking in my ability to hold an audience -- I would be happy to hear your views and would be grateful for notes on how you feel I can improve...but until then, you don't know what you are talking about

Stephen Minch summarizes John Carney's view on six card vs. eight as follows (Carneycopia p.234):

...as is typical with John's thinking, he has stripped the effect to its basics. He mixes only six cards, three red and three black. This seems the ideal number; any fewer and the magical separation of colors is trivialized; and more cards only complicate the procedure, often without yielding an appreciable gain in effect

this is not a personal claim...John is not claiming that six "is the right number for (him) to communicate the illusion." He is claiming that a greater number unnecessarily clutters the procedure...

Should we conclude from this that John Carney just isn't good enough to not have the extra cards "only complicate complicate the procedure?"

I can only hope that John, Juan and I can come to perform well enough -- someday -- that we no longer need to streamline material or make any choices about what material is interesting or not interesting...

the very best,

N.
IllusionArtistry.com

[NCMarsh]

Curtis,

I re-read your post and it is much softer than it seemed when I first read it. I hope the response above doesn't read too harshly...

I was initially reading your post as "if you feel the need to streamline, then you must not be good enough to hold attention with the version that you find superflous." I think there is at least a whiff of that in your post -- but it is softer and subtler than it seemed on first blush...

my more sober response:

I think that performers should take advantage of every strength availible to them...I think that being an engaging performer doesn't mean that you don't work -- HARD -- to make your material tight and efficient and to eliminate every weakness that you find in it...

I am certain that Don Alan, Del Ray, and Denny Haney could have held/could hold an audience with virtually ANY material...but that doesn't mean that any of them are going to sit down at a table and start dealing three piles of seven in a professional performance for the public.

I think that eight cards adds little to the effect while increasing one of the weaknesses that is universally recognized in Oil and Water...Am I afraid that I will "bore" my audience if I use 8 cards? No. Do I feel that I would be giving them less than I can? YES!

best wishes,

N.
IllusionArtistry.com

[Guest]

Originally posted by Nathan Coe Marsh:
The beer glass analogy illustrates that:

• when using 6 cards you cannot go from mixed to separated by moving one card
• further, it seems impossible to laymen (with whom one would be betting at the bar) that you could unmix six cards by moving just one of them

You are technically correct. But intuitively and from the audience's standpoint, the sense is that unmixing three of each cards can be accomplished much more easily than of four, because each triple has only one "inside" card that must be handled, a la the beer trick. So of course the 8-card versions appear much more impossible.

Whether that extra level of apparent impossibility is worth the inherent problems with pacing and timing that you referred to is of course a different, more subjective matter.

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Originally posted by scorch:
But intuitively and from the audience's standpoint, the sense is that unmixing three of each cards can be accomplished much more easily than of four, because each triple has only one "inside" card that must be handled, a la the beer trick.

This assumes that the audience views the mixed six-card packet as two separate sets of three, each with one odd card. I'm not sure that this is the case. Rather, my feeling is that they see it as a whole: six cards of alternating colors. Looking at it this way, it appears as if you need to touch each card in order to cause the separation.

Has anyone considered presenting this as a "challenge" of sorts? Magician vs. spectator: who can separate the face down cards faster? Naturally, you'd need to take precautions against making the spectator feel bad, but I think the picture of a spectator dealing his cards into two packets while the magician sits back without touching his cards is a nice one. It'd certainly emphasize the difference between the amount of work needed in order to cause the separation.

-Jim

[NCMarsh]

Jim,

I REALLY like that idea...interesting possibilities

best,

N.

[Jim Maloney_dup1]

Originally posted by Nathan Coe Marsh:
Jim,

I REALLY like that idea...interesting possibilities

best,

N.

Feel free to play with it -- being an amateur, I don't have tons of opportunities to experiment with different presentations, so I'd be interested to see what kind of real-life reactions you get from it.

-Jim

[Curtis Kam]

N

For the life of me, I cant come up with one good reason to continue this exchange with you. I suspect that this will be the last I have to say.

You are either unable or unwilling to understand what I, and apparently others, have written. Before you set out to impress people with what youve read, you should demonstrate an ability to understand what youre reading. To wit:

It is presumptous (sic) of you to judge my work without having seen it.

The presumption is yours. I was responding to your analysis, which you did post for all to enjoy, and not your performance, of which I am happily oblivious. Your attempt to redirect the discussion in this manner is disingenuous. For the record, this thread, like so many things in life, is not about you.

Mr. Benatar tells us that Juan Tamariz -- while loving oil and water -- does not feature it for laymen; ought we to presume from this that Juan is unable to make it interesting for laymen?

Read Mr. Benatars post again. The entire thing. This is one of the last things he would suggest. He would, however, suggest that Juan Tamariz has extremely high standards, and consequently underestimates the impact his presentations of this routine might have on a lay audience.

this is not a personal claim...John is not claiming that six "is the right number for (him) to communicate the illusion." He is claiming that a greater number unnecessarily clutters the procedure

Read again. Mr. Carney is not claiming anything here. Youve quoted Steven Minch, saying it seems to him that Mr. Carney uses six cards because it is enough. There is nothing here to support your conclusion that John Carney is claiming that a greater number unnecessarily clutters the procedure.

In fact, had you not been quite so eager to misread Mr. Minch, you might have realized that you yourself have already provided a reasonable explanation for Mr. Carneys use of just six cardshe has the full deck separation as his climax. Since the O&W is the prelude to this effect, it would actually be counter-productive to use anything more than the minimal number of cards at this stage. What was I saying about choosing the right number to communicate ones illusion?

So, to answer your question:

Should we conclude from this that John Carney just isn't good enough to not have the extra cards "only complicate complicate the procedure?" (sic)

No, we should not. He hasnt said anything here. We can, however, conclude exactly that about someone who says he cant make more than six cards interesting. And I take you at your original words:

One of the reasons that oil and water can be so excruciatingly boring is that the mixing sequences are long, and repetitive...nothing can pull you out of the moment like the constant drone of "red, black, red, black, red, black, red, black"...

I feel that eliminating the final pair does not only eliminates the actual time that it takes to name the final pair, but it dramatically reduces the amount of time that it feels like the entire display takes....series of three are, as has been commented on by so many people, very natural...three pairs creates a complete cadence of "begining, middle, end"...where a fourth pair feels piled on top of the end...

If you don't have their attention and interest -- the increased impossibility is not worth it...

and from this its reasonable to conclude that you stop at six cards because by the seventh, you lose your audiences attention and interest. If not, the increased impossibility would be worth it, would it not?

With regard to your more sober response, dont bother. As much as you have misread Mr. Benatar and Mr. Minch, you got that part of my post mostly right.

I now quite willingly relinquish the thread to the original discussion.

Big hugs,

CK

[NCMarsh]

Curtis,

You make some strong points about many details of the post, but we're talking right past each other and I think that the minutiae is obscuring the real issue.

My only point is that material -- in and of itself -- can be more or less conducive to engaging an audience because of the way that it has been constructed; I feel that one of the details that can make oil and water a more powerful and effective piece for laymen is to reduce the number of cards used and to reduce the number of phases. This is not based upon my experience performing the routine with 8 cards, it is based on my theatrical sensibilities and my observation of the routine in the hands of many VERY capable performers.

To be crystal clear: I have never performed an oil and water with 8 cards. My problems are issues with the procedure itself -- the question of whether or not these weaknesses can be overcome by the performer is irrelevant to whether or not they are present in the material itself.

A very rich discussion of the principles that inform these kinds of decisions is possible. Michael Ammar argues ("The Process to Effect Ratio," Aspen Bar Magic, p. 58) that as the length of the exposition of an effect grows, the impact of the climax diminishes; and that every increase in procedure must be met with a corresponding increase in impact. Many of us, I am sure, nod at this as an abstract principle. It gets interesting when we work to apply it.

How much does the unweaving of the 4th pair add to the effect? Why? What relationship does the cadence of the displays have to the impact of the effect? How does the addition of the final pair alter the timing of the climax? Why does oil and water have the reputation that it does as "entertaining for magicians only?" There are many interesting directions that this discussion could take, and I submit that there are thoughtful and well-founded positions on both sides of each of these questions which do not require us to disparage the work of a performer that we have never seen (esp. when it comes to judging his hypothetical ability to engage an audience with a particular sequence that he does not perform).

I am disappointed that, given this rich ground for constructive discussion, Mr. Kam has instead chosen inflamatory and uninformed ad hominem.


best,

N.

[Vraagaard]

Originally posted by Nathan Coe Marsh:

One of the reasons that oil and water can be so excruciatingly boring is that the mixing sequences are long, and repetitive...nothing can pull you out of the moment like the constant drone of "red, black, red, black, red, black, red, black"...

HI Nathan, Hmmmmmm First of all you claim that the 5 second pause of Mr. Jennings is a "problem" in the effect, and now you claim that mixing four pairs takes to long time and make the effect boring?

The rest of us believes that you can actually build suspense and drama by using pauses, and if you have build that suspense the audience will be very interested in the fairness of mixing every pair of cards. That will actually be a part of building the suspense too - even with 4 pairs.

I acknowledge that any version of this effect can be a miracle in the right hands. I just have a hard time understanding why all this seems to be such a problem for you. Maybe it doesn't suit your style to have pauses and 4 pairs - however, why not just acknowledge that in other performers hands it could work a miracle.

We will never agree anyway, and we shouldn't - if we all performed the same way it would be boring - there is no one way in magic - there is many ways - pauses, no pauses etc.

Your version is probably just as strong as the others - especially in your hands - but it still seems strange to me - that "time" seems to be a big issues for you - even stranger that you don't seem to acknowledge that other performers can use "time" to enhance the effect. So it seems - maybe I misunderstood you. And this is not said to disrespect you, not at all, it's just said to explain you what we are all really reacting too whenever you bring up the issue that time in this O&W effect (i.e. pauses is a problem and 4 pairs are boring).

Thanks

Jan

[Ryan Matney]

I'm going to ignore the big debates going on and just say, if you do the trick at all, you have to pause after the mix or just before the revelation of the seperation. If you don't, spectators have no time to think about what the effect is.

It's not complicated for them but most magic benifits from increasing clarity.

I have used the jennings method and pause exactly as he did and find it effective. I first saw Aldo Colombini use the interlocked fingers display to clarify the effect. I find this an extremly effective bit of business.

I don't think laymen find the effect boring as long it's varied and doesn't go on too long I think it's pretty entertaining. It is a small effect though, not in impact, but by nature of its visibility. I find it plays fairly small, for me anyway.

[NCMarsh]

Vraagaard,

I'm afraid that I am unable to answer your questions any better than I feel I already have (or, if I could it, that it would be in the form of an extensive essay or book.) I am sorry that that's unhelpful. I would be happy to talk more about this issue personally should we ever meet.

Best,

N.
IllusionArtistry.com

[NCMarsh]

Ryan,

I first saw Aldo Colombini use the interlocked fingers display to clarify the effect. I find this an extremly effective bit of business.

I adore, and use, this Ascanio display (I use it, however, during my opening script rather than between the initial and final displays).

Best,

N.