Magic pet peeves.. stir things up!

[bagelsandlox]

My pet peeve is the magic retail world. 99% of what is released is garbage and we have phoney 'endorsements' from online friends to make it worse

[Justin Wheatley]

Here's the Big Secret to the Invisible Palm.

Ready?

Convince them that you are not, in fact, spreading two cards.

Read up on some Tamariz. Cancel those methods, broseph.

Seacrest out.

It's rather difficult to convince someone of a negative, especially if you are going to be vulnerable to their inquiry on the matter later. Likewise when attempting to demonstrate a thing one has to make sure they understand the thing - and so could lead them to look for a thing.

What specifically do you suggest, and how has that worked for you in this context?

I performed the Invisible Palm successfully for a couple years. My primary goal was to convince the spectators, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I only held four cards. I don't profess to be great at many things in magic, but I can say that I am extremely comfortable with handling doubles. That wasn't a problem for me.

Now, that being said (apologies to Larry David), I let the Invisible Palm fall by the wayside because I wasn't a fan of the repetition of method. I was successful with the routine, but I was never entirely comfortable with it. Others, however, are quite comfortable, and continue to be very successful, with the routine. So I disagree with Smokemist's broad dismissal.

There are some effects that are truly bad, and cannot be salvaged by even the greatest of performers. But Invisible Palm isn't one of them.

It reminds me of a Cafe thread a while back where someone basically said, "Why do people use the slop shuffle? It's not deceptive. I saw a Youtube clip, and the performance of the slop shuffle didn't fool me." It ain't the trick that's bad.

[Jonathan Townsend]

... but I can say that I am extremely comfortable with handling doubles. That wasn't a problem for me.

Now, that being said (apologies to Larry David), I let the Invisible Palm fall by the wayside because I wasn't a fan of the repetition of method. I was successful with the routine, but I was never entirely comfortable with it. Others, however, are quite comfortable, and continue to be very successful, with the routine. So I disagree with Smokemist's broad dismissal.

There are some effects that are truly bad, and cannot be salvaged by even the greatest of performers. But Invisible Palm isn't one of them.

It reminds me of a Cafe thread a while back where someone basically said, "Why do people use the slop shuffle? It's not deceptive. I saw a Youtube clip, and the performance of the slop shuffle didn't fool me." It ain't the trick that's bad.

If I read your post correctly you've shifted from excited but vague pronoucments about applied theory to recommending some basic competance at handling double cards for this item. :(

Any thoughts on the Translocation type approach off the top of the pack? That line of thinking could offer options on building the effect of each take-transfer or transit up to the last ace being placed into the center of the pack and taken out via the mythical "tabled Erdnase" and perhaps an under the card case appearance as a climax. I used to play with Walton's Devil's Elevator and went that way for the last card - building each false deal as a skill up the the tabled bottom deal.

[Justin Wheatley]

... but I can say that I am extremely comfortable with handling doubles. That wasn't a problem for me.

Now, that being said (apologies to Larry David), I let the Invisible Palm fall by the wayside because I wasn't a fan of the repetition of method. I was successful with the routine, but I was never entirely comfortable with it. Others, however, are quite comfortable, and continue to be very successful, with the routine. So I disagree with Smokemist's broad dismissal.

There are some effects that are truly bad, and cannot be salvaged by even the greatest of performers. But Invisible Palm isn't one of them.

It reminds me of a Cafe thread a while back where someone basically said, "Why do people use the slop shuffle? It's not deceptive. I saw a Youtube clip, and the performance of the slop shuffle didn't fool me." It ain't the trick that's bad.

If I read your post correctly you've shifted from excited but vague pronoucments about applied theory to recommending some basic competance at handling double cards for this item. :(

Any thoughts on the Translocation type approach off the top of the pack? That line of thinking could offer options on building the effect of each take-transfer or transit up to the last ace being placed into the center of the pack and taken out via the mythical "tabled Erdnase" and perhaps an under the card case appearance as a climax. I used to play with Walton's Devil's Elevator and went that way for the last card - building each false deal as a skill up the the tabled bottom deal.

My pronouncements sounded vague because Tamariz's canceling theories cover a lot of ground and are very circumstantial to the performer and his routine. Also, they're quite well known at this point, and I figured Mr. Smokemist would be familiar with it.

If you want me to be more specific, there are several obvious applications of Tamariz's ideas that can be applied to Invisible Palm. Ones that I used were: having the spectator hand me the four cards (I usually didn't use aces); do the old ruse where you basically rule out palming cards by showing how difficult it is to palm an entire card in your hand ("!"); a sneaky application of double stick can really make a routine zoom; have the spectator him/herself attempt the laydown (disproving a double on the table); and of course, that extra indifferent card that's never seen can do wonders for a vanish off the top of the deck.

I hope that's clearer.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Yes, thanks :)

Justin, folks,

By way of background I started on this trick at about the same time as starting work on Ramsay's cards to pocket routine and treated the underlying effect as a coins across done using cards where the "travelers" is the coins to glass routine in Bobo's done without the glass or the "clink" to announce the transit. That left me to use the tent vanish etc after the miscalls for the Ramsay trick and sorely tempted to add the Kennedy gaffus to the tabled side of the Open Travelers effect. Mixed drinks - not to everybody's taste but that's the way I explore effects, not routines in specific.

The way I scripted the initial card laydown was to use the joker as hole card and one ace dealt in the hand - and a confederate as plot/literary device for a fictional poker game presentation. Invisible cards got me in trouble even when letting cards drop (somewhat moist hands here) as folks were not sure whether I was being serious or whether they were to treat it as a gag. I left that as an acting challenge for scripting and characte work and hope to get back to the trick soon. Gosh it's temping to use Black Art or similar to make the first card appear on the table. Maybe a card under glass or Tommy Wonder Ranch egg would work. Someday.

Being specific's not (just) a game,

Jon

[Steve Mills]

1. Humorous hats - either on the magician or put on the head of a "helper"

2. People that join in a slap down after the Head Genii has whizzed on a poster.

[Richard Kaufman]

Some folks need a good hosing. Others are free to make their own decisions. If folks don't agree with me, no one needs to make a comment. If there are lots of comments, then my opinion is one held by others as well. That's pretty evident here.

[Glenn Bishop]

Some folks need a good hosing. Others are free to make their own decisions. If folks don't agree with me, no one needs to make a comment. If there are lots of comments, then my opinion is one held by others as well. That's pretty evident here.

Sorry - I don't agree!

[Richard Kaufman]

You don't agree with what part of my statement?

[Rob Block]

Who I am is irrelevant. I will not give my name to do the fact that I may be judged in future competitions by the very same people who disagree with me on my posts on this board. That may unfairly influence judging decisions. What is important is that I have an opinion that Id like to express in a free country. Surly Mr. Gunn of all people would understand this.

Anyone around from back in the old days of the Usenet alt.magic forum? There was a character calling himself cloudcloak. The similarities are astounding. Just sayin'...

Rob

[Glenn Bishop]

You don't agree with what part of my statement?

Well let's try to explore that then.

Some folks need a good hosing.

By the word hosing - me thinks insult - put down - rip appart and make fun of. If that is what you ment by hosing I don't agree.

Some folks need a good hosing. Others are free to make their own decisions. If folks don't agree with me, no one needs to make a comment. If there are lots of comments, then my opinion is one held by others as well.

If I may add in my opinion this was shown quite well in a thread on this forum where I tried to open up a conversation about the triumph shuffle - and culling with the riffle shuffle.

I put this information in a book that in my opinion revolutionizes culling and stacking with a riffle shuffle for magicians and magic.

In my opinion the thread had posts that insulted myself and my work - myself being in the business of performing card shark moves for more than thirty years in front of audiences, and the work that I have used for much of that time. This in my opinion encouraged other's to also insult myself and my work that seems to continue today.

That is why I do not agree.

Thank you in advance for letting me say my side of things.

Just a few thougths and opinion - cheers!

[Pete Biro]

Phoney names/handles... bah.... kick 'em.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Confusing what one might say to an audience when performing with constructive dialog among peers.

[mrgoat]

I put this information in a book that in my opinion revolutionizes culling and stacking with a riffle shuffle for magicians and magic.

Sadly, no one else shares that opinion.

:(

[John M. Dale]

Who I am is irrelevant. I will not give my name to do the fact that I may be judged in future competitions by the very same people who disagree with me on my posts on this board. That may unfairly influence judging decisions. What is important is that I have an opinion that Id like to express in a free country. Surly Mr. Gunn of all people would understand this.

Anyone around from back in the old days of the Usenet alt.magic forum? There was a character calling himself cloudcloak. The similarities are astounding. Just sayin'...

Rob

Yeah. I remember cloudcloak. Very full of himself. I seem to remember mrgoat maybe tangling with his cloudness but I may be remembering wrong. (Wouldn't be the first time.)

Now that he's back perhaps goatie will chime in.

JMD

[Glenn Bishop]

I put this information in a book that in my opinion revolutionizes culling and stacking with a riffle shuffle for magicians and magic.

Sadly, no one else shares that opinion.

:(

Sadly I don't think that you know anything at all about the subject matter mr goat.

My opinion is above - and I DID write the book on this subject matter and I DO HAVE the years of experience to back it up.

Just a few more thoughts and opinion.

Cheers!

[Jonathan Townsend]

Gotta love some of our pet peeves.

[Bill McFadden]

Gotta love some of our pet peeves.

And not unlike William Safire, I love my pet, Peeve.

[Rob Block]

Yeah. I remember cloudcloak. Very full of himself. I seem to remember mrgoat maybe tangling with his cloudness but I may be remembering wrong. (Wouldn't be the first time.)

Now that he's back perhaps goatie will chime in.

JMD

I'm sure John LeBlanc remembers. I took a trip down memory lane searching through the alt.magic newsgroup today from back in the late 90's. Very amusing times. The whole cloudcloak debacle was especially entertaining. I remember Danny Hustle as a great one to bait Mr. Cloudcloak and his numerous other aliases. His eventual "outing" was epic.

Rob

[Richard Kaufman]

And who was "cloudcloak"?

[Rick Ruhl]

I think it was Mark Lewis

[mrgoat]

Sadly I don't think that you know anything at all about the subject matter mr goat.

And I would defend to the death your right to that opinion, Sir.

My opinion is above - and I DID write the book on this subject matter and I DO HAVE the years of experience to back it up.

Yes. That is true. I wasn't suggesting it was otherwise. What I said was that no one else thinks your book is revolutionary. In fact, I challenge you to find just one other magician in the world, aside from your new BFF Lewis, that thinks your book and the ideas contained therein are even worthwhile.

[magicam]

My pet peeve is magicians pros and amateurs alike who think that a basic knowledge of the history of our art and its practitioners is irrelevant to developing into a better entertainer.

I believe that you are only seeing the trick through a magicians point of view and are actually unable to view magic the way a layman views magic. You are one of those guys that professional magicians hate to have in their audience; you (metaphorically) sit on your hands and have no reaction because you know how its done. In my opinion, thats a flaw that affects your ability to select suitable material and perform anything you do choose to present well. I learned this lesson the hard way a very long time ago.

I love to perform Dingles Quick 3-Way. Technically, I do it well. But when I first started doing it, I was not getting much of a reaction, and finally a girl simply said to me, you do that with sleight of hand.

To borrow a phrase, How else?

So is the trick lame or my presentation of itmy inability to create magic through the sleight of hand I was in fact performing?

It was, of course, the latter. It took me a while, but I worked through my issues and now the trick is about the people watching it and not me or the cards in my hands.

Tricks are not lame. But many magicians are.

Dustin

Disclaimer/Confession: I no longer perform (other than for the blind) and havent practiced for many years, but Ive seen my share of magic performed, both live and on t.v., and have been part of the magic community for over 40 years. So, right or wrong, I have formed some opinions about magic and magicians over the years.

I believe that you are only seeing the trick through a magicians point of view and are actually unable to view magic the way a layman views magic.

That observation, as illustrated by Dustins performance experience with Q3W, rings so true to me. And by some cosmic coincidence, Dustin, lame is the very acronym Ive used for years to describe (what I perceive is) the problem that you were experiencing: the LAMe (Look at Me!!!) Theory of Presentation.

IMHO, the secret to being a successful entertainer is at once exceedingly difficult and exceedingly simple: give the spectators what they want. Thinking like a magician merely provides the mechanical and logistical means to achieving that goal. But if a magician doesnt know what amazes lay people, why theyre amazed, and when to amaze them all of which requires thinking like a spectator and not a magician then the potential for his/her success is severely handicapped. Seems to me the LAMe approach to presentation doesnt focus enough on the aforementioned three Ws.

Reading between the lines of smokemists original post, theres an element therein which seems a valid concern, namely the sameness of magicians repertoires. But with the tricks he cites, smokemists primary objection seems to be the obviousness (to audiences) of their secrets, and on this claim I would disagree, largely for the reasons already given in previous posts.

On the subject of the sameness of magicians repertoires, the lack of creativity lament has been much discussed online and in our literature, so it need not be revisited here, other than to observe that magicians tend to do the same tricks for two reasons: (1) magicians and magic as a culture, for that matter are rather conservative (not always a good thing!), and (2) if properly preformed, the old tricks still entertain! Theres a very good reason why the cups and balls have been performed for millennia and been part of magics how to literature for nearly 400 years.

[Glenn Bishop]

Yes. That is true. I wasn't suggesting it was otherwise. What I said was that no one else thinks your book is revolutionary.

Well - since apparently none of them - whoever you are talking about - has read the book or tried the material in a real performing situation - over years - my opinion would be that your argument (or continued trolling) is a moot point.

In fact, I challenge you to find just one other magician in the world, aside from your new BFF Lewis, that thinks your book and the ideas contained therein are even worthwhile.

Another moot point in my opinion - I will say - that the insults toward it - my technique and my video's and myself have little to do with how much value I think the shuffle is.

I am a performer first. I am not a technical magician searching for the most technically clean method. Although I am far more technical than I need to be in my performance market. What I am after is "get the money moves" I can use while performing. I am not interested in looking for technical perfection like some snobby card magicians I have met over the years.

For me the moves have to work in performance for me to "get the money." So I can earn a living. Both the triumph shuffle systems and the punch cull system for me passed this acid test of - "get the money" when I do shows - and they work well for the way I like to work. The rest the trolling the insults it is all just B.S. to me.

If others want to work out more advanced methods - that they think are - proper block transfer shuffles that are structurally superior (in their opinion). Good for them - have fun with that.

I - however will stick to what gets the money for me when I am doing a show.

Also my books are not published to add to some collector magicians book shelf. They have been and always will be work books for workers. The same for my DVD's. Non workers of magic - no need to get them - because in my opinion they always seem to find something to complain about.

Since by my records mr goat you never purchased the book or any of my DVD's or any of my other products - my conversation in this with you is now over.

If you wish to continue or try to contact me in any way I will be happy to have my lawyer contact you.

Just a few more thoughts and opinion.

Cheers!

[Magic Fred]

...

" 'Good enough for the public' is ample justification for defects which are difficult to overcome; but, when the observance of recognised principles would be just as easy, and just as effective, "Good enough for the public" becomes the plea of either an ignoramus or a fool."

- Nevil Maskelyne, Our Magic

[Glenn Bishop]

As I said many times - to satisfy the client and the audience is the reason for the show - and my reason to do it is because I want to earn a living - to do this the moves must work and get the money!

I really don't care what magicians that sit on the side-lines think about what I do (ignoramus or fool).

Perfection in magic (in my opinion) is in the performance art - of "using" the technique "in action!"

It is very different from doing technique - just for friends at a magic club meeting or at home in your living room. Just as it is easy to quote theory out of old books - to try to prove some kind of a point in some argument.

"Experience is more important than theory to the performing magician." - Glenn Bishop, Punch Deck Pro Final


And I DID WRITE THE BOOK - AND I DO HAVE THE EXPERIENCE in regards to this subject matter.

By the way Magic Fred or whatever you are calling yourself this week - since you have never purchased my book or any of my DVD products my conversation with you in this is now over.

Just a few more thoughts and opinion.

Cheers!

[Jonathan Townsend]

Another peeve, fundamental and willful illiteracy as regards the well regarded literature in our craft. It's about not having to make the same mistakes as those who took the trouble to put their findings into print (albeit without the "here's what my working audiences expect and here's how I connect to them by way of this item" explicitly stated most often).

What to say of those who have not read the 'erdnase' text, can't cite Robert-Houdin's Secrets of Conjuring and Magic or Our Magic or turn to Jarrett and Ramsay and Rezvani as resources and reminders?

Okay maybe that goes as a corollary to those who address peers as if they were lay audiences - the perils of misplaced vanity.

To Glenn; If I had to choose between using skill in performance and using a gaff/cooler and relying on acting to sell a trick - I'd go with the acting as that way I can focus on the audience and not have to expend my energies on the methods to make sure the props are where they are supposed to be. Just my opinion. Those who have mastered the skills they wish to demonstrate to such an extent that they can use them without diminishing their ability to stay audience-centered have my admiration.

Jon

[mrgoat]

Yes. That is true. I wasn't suggesting it was otherwise. What I said was that no one else thinks your book is revolutionary.

Well - since apparently none of them - whoever you are talking about - has read the book or tried the material in a real performing situation - over years - my opinion would be that your argument (or continued trolling) is a moot point.

It's *exactly* the point Mr Bishop. You claim you have written a revolutionary book. I challenge you to produce someone, anyone, that agrees.

[Rick Ruhl]

Phoney names/handles... bah.... kick 'em.

Yeah handles are on the end of shovels.. ;)

[mrgoat]

Phoney names/handles... bah.... kick 'em.

Yeah handles are on the end of shovels.. ;)

"The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."

continues: http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity


mrgoat AKA
Damian Jennings

[Kent Gunn]

Damian,

Dude, you're my freaking hero.

Kent

[erdnasephile]

A very apropos quote, Damian, for the upcoming holiday! Thanks for posting it!

[Potty the Pirate]

Blimey! Although I skimmed through most of this long thread, I didn't notice anyone who really understands what performing is about. OK, perhaps I missed it.
But even if someone did mention this, I have to say, if you entertain your audience, it matters not a jot HOW you do it. If you choose to use the Losander Table, Linking Rings, or a blast of fire from your mouth, the name of the game is to keep folks in their seats, and enjoying watching what you do.
Does it really matter what your routines are? Of course not!!!
Those who struggle to hold an audience may be under the impression that if they could just deliver the next best thing in magic, they will suddenly become stars. But those who regularly entertain crowds, and keep them transfixed, know that it's only one's persona that really counts. Material takes a huge second place.
I do love to see a show with original material, but also it's the stage presence and likeability which engage an audience, when all's said and done.
Potty ;)

[Glenn Bishop]

I already answered as much as I am going to answer. I feel like I should post a sign "troll at your own risk!"

Just a few more thoughts and opinion.

[Glenn Bishop]

I already answered as much as I am going to answer. I feel like I should post a sign "troll at your own risk!"

Just a few more thoughts and opinion.

It might go with my sign keep off the grass in my front yard!

Just a few more thoughts and opinion.

Cheers!

[Bill McFadden]

My pet peeve is magicians pros and amateurs alike who think that a basic knowledge of the history of our art and its practitioners is irrelevant to developing into a better entertainer.

Thanks, Mr. Shevlin, for taking time to write an essay which, as they say, "is worth the price of the book." It's why I make a daily effort to see things as a layman would - especially when watching performances.

The other part has to do with my belief that one cannot understand the present without the context of the past.

[mrgoat]

I already answered as much as I am going to answer. I feel like I should post a sign "troll at your own risk!"

Just a few more thoughts and opinion.

You don't need to answer anything, love. You said you wrote a revolutionary book. You didn't. That's all. There's nothing for you to answer as no other magicians agree with you.

Sleep well.

[Rob Block]

And who was "cloudcloak"?

He was nobody. Although he spent many months talking about all of the performing he had done, his stage experience, the magicians he had mentored, the extraordinary experiences he had had touring the world performing. (Similar to Mr. smokemist above, which is what jogged my memory). He posted endless essays (mainly ramblings) about magic theory and his take on the state of the art and what and who (in his opinion) performed "good" magic. He became belligerent when challenged, then created multiple aliases to back himself up. He stirred the place up for quite a while. It all eventually unraveled in extremely entertaining form. The parody posts were some incredible creative writing. Once his real name was posted, "poof", he vanished, never to return. I guess that was the true irony of it all, his real life persona was as completely anonymous as all of his internet aliases. Once exposed, he crawled back under the rock he came from.

This was back in the heyday of usenet when alt.magic was getting 100 posts a day and the Electronic Grymoire (the EG) was "the" place to be. Mid to late 90's. Ah, what great memories.

Rob

[Glenn Bishop]

I already answered as much as I am going to answer. I feel like I should post a sign "troll at your own risk!"

Just a few more thoughts and opinion.

You don't need to answer anything, love. You said you wrote a revolutionary book. You didn't. That's all. There's nothing for you to answer as no other magicians agree with you.

Sleep well.

As I said above I wrote the book and I have the experience. You on the other hand - I don't think you ever wrote a book - I know you never read my book or saw the DVD's.

Just FYI - I have been thinking of adding to the book an extra segment on how I do the shuffle - and putting it all on a CD in PDF format. However you most likely won't get it because I do not sell products or send to the UK.

I am also thinking about putting my book Glenn Bishop's Punch Deck Pro Final into the same CD PDF format next year. Well just have to wait and see how things go.

Perhaps I will advertise it in Genii magizine one day.

Just a few thoughts and opinion.

Cheers

[Magic Fred]

Egotism is the anaesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity.
-Frank Leahy