Originally posted by Jason Tang:
Do you have any thoughts on the difference between doing the rise one-handed (ie. Raise Rise) or with two-hands (ie. your original technique)?
Personally, I use your method.
Frankly, I don't know if it matters. The audience has likely never seen the effect before. They're not going to go "why did he use two hands instead of one", or whatever. They aren't aware of conditions in the same way we are.
That doesn't mean conditions don't affect them. But we need to make choices regarding which conditions are important and which are either not important, or are less important.
It is possible to use a one handed pass for the effect, but the shade required would probably cancel the benefits.
For most of the effect, the deck is held in one hand. That they come together now and then may or may not have any meaning for the spectators. Unless, of course, you give it meaning. Say, with a riffle. But then laymen are as likely to ascribe the rise to the riffle as they are to having your hands together.
But there are some things that definite do affect their perception of the effect. One of those things is that they are dead sure, all the way through, that that rising card is singular, unique. That the face up card (identity proof 1) with their highly visible, unique signature plastered all over it (identity proof 2) never leaves their sight for even an instant. That's what proves it's rising.
To have the card rise face down is
essentially using duplicates, without the strength of actually using duplicates (i.e., identity proof).
Another thing that has a definite effect, that in fact I think is absolutely crucial, is that you cancel out the most obvious method they will come up with, i.e., "somehow, he's yankin' it out and stickin' it in up higher." And trust me, that is
what they'll think if you don't cancel it out.
Finally, the meat of the trick, the first couple of rises, (is that a word? No.) seems to me to promise the spectator, psychologically, that the final effect will be completed in as magical-looking a way as the ones that led up to it as well as being a logical continuation of it
. So, to have the card visibly rise up the side of the deck, almost to the top, then have it pushed flush and secretly and not
visibly go the rest of the way, seems like a cheat. It feels wrong. And it should. You're following a stronger effect with a weaker one, as well as one that is not artistically copacetic with the previous effect.
I wouldn't give up those three things if the result was that I could do the trick with the deck on the table while I was ten feet away, let alone without the right hand.
Ok, it's late, I'm rambling, but I hope I've made some kind of point.
If not, well, tomorrow is another day.
P.S. There are
things I like about the Fisher handling, and I have now seen Mr. Kosby do raise rise on web video and it looks good. But the card needs to be differentiated from the pack somehow. An odd-backed card, do it with a face-up deck and a face-down card, something. Ok, I think I've beaten this dead horse enough.