Hooker Card Rise

[Guest]

Originally posted (in part) by JT:
... properly document it as theatrical scripts-props etc the way Shakespeare's players preserved his plays...

If folks in magic properly document someones wonder work in the same fashion and with the same level of accuracy as Shakspers, God help all of the performers out there, Jonathan. Shakespearean scholarship is such a cottage industry in great part because there is precious little agreement amongst scholars on what actually constituted Bills work, as opposed to the work of typesetters, script prompters, literary pirates, etc. Text varies significantly from quarto to quarto, from quarto to folio, etc.

His sonnets are largely a different story.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Magicam:

His sonnets are largely a different story.

Yes, everyone knows Marlowe wrote them.

:)

[Guest]

Hmmm yes some folks enjoy fighting over the one "true" text.

The play "The Incredible H. L. Mencken" performed in NYC 1978 (80?) had a Q&A afterward where we were informed that just the last week they had dropped out the tuba and banjo playing from the show. Call it a moment of astonishment here.

On the other hand, my father, a classical musicologist informed me that the composers in his realm of research wrote down exactly what they wished performed and did not leave so much up for interpretation. I will ask if there are works with more than one score where significant changes were made over time or venue.

Perhaps it's a good thing our craft is not set in stone but more likely sketched in memory and explored in performance - annotated as needs be when notes are given to students - as works seem to evolve considerably during the lives of the artist.

* I hope folks can tell I'm all for leaving the myths and mysteries to audiences and keeping the how-to of our craft very much alive, in use and explored to the fullest as our craft keeps pace (and hopefully gets back into the lead) of our technological society.

[Carlo Morpurgo]

Originally posted by Whitelighter:
I see those here who only want to deconstruct, just to KNOW.

In my case, I do not NEED to know, I simply accepted a challenge. This challenge was special in that one is not allowed to know whether he's right or wrong, even partly. It's putting the pieces together that is interesting, not the actual answer.

You are telling Carlos he is wrong which is only fueling him. Tell him nothing and maybe he will not look as hard , satisfied with his conclusions.

Not in my case. I worked harder before RK told me I was wrong. I did not consider those remarks meaningful.

I do not blame Carlos for trying to work out the method. It is in all of our nature to want to feel in control by knowing the unknown.

Definitely not my case....As Richard Feynman once said "I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened of not knowing things."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmpUWEW ... re=related

It's not a control thing for me, it's the "pleasure of finding things out"...I am not sure you have ever experienced how good it feels when you finally hit the solution of a problem, after hard thinking (I am not talking about HCR).

2. You are looking to hard for complexity that might not be there. You need to think about THE TIMES and what was available when he created this show.. Yes there are mechanical elements and some may SEEM complex to us today. Do not forget that there are many complex clockworks in many props that were COMMON back then and today seem harder to create since it is not common.
I say you will be disappointed on how some of the methods work.

Who is looking too hard for complexity? What specifically makes you think somoneone is looking for complexity.

And it is a good lesson on how to set a stage and script so you are misdirected from the obvious answers.
The answer to the Hooker Show is not to over look the obvious and simple.

So you actually know how Hooker works and, moreover, that it is simple and obvious?

Carlo

[Guest]

This may or may not be the place for this so if it doesn't belong here, please delete it. I recently reviewed the e-book on Dr. Hooker's Rising Card for MUM magazine. The article was "edited" and I would like to have the complete review somewhere...so here seems like the right place.

After the review was published I received quite an email from the publisher about how the review was unfair. Several of his points were things that were "edited" out of my original review. So here is my original review:


_____ Magazine
Review of Samuel Cox Hooker and his Rising Cards
Christoph Wasshuber and Lybrary.com

Review by Gary Plants

In 1914, Dr. Samuel Hooker, an avid amateur magician, gave his first known performance of his rising card effect for Harry Keller. This was the beginning of what has today become quite a legend in magic. The show was given the name Impossibilites by Dr. Hooker. This name was chosen because all of his visitors stated that what they had witnessed was totally impossible.

By 1918, another addition was added to the act.a disembodied mind reading teddy-bear head called Miltiades III and the show was renamed Impossibilities and Miltiades III. From 1918 until 1934, Impossibilities and Miltiades III was performed for all of the worlds most famous magicians. All were total perplexed, baffled, and amazed by what they saw.

Impossibilities and Miltiades III was an invitation only show that usually included anywhere from five to twenty five observers. Cards from shuffled decks rose, floated, danced and anything else the good doctor asked them to do.
Magicians who were fooled by Dr. Hookers act included Dr. Elliott, Houdini, Jean Hugard, Harry Kellar, Harlan Tarbell, Al Baker, Silent Mora and many others.

In later years (1929 and 1934), when Dr. Hookers health was failing, he trained John Mulholland and Shirley Quimby to perform the act. In 1935 Dr. Hooker died just as another series of shows was being planned.

Throughout the years, Hookers show was described in many magazines and newspapers. The Sphinx magic magazine contains many articles and comments regarding Dr. Hookers act. Greater Magic has a description of the act given by Tarbell. John Mulholland provides the most precise description of the act in The Pallbearers Review in the 1960s. His article lists 21 separate acts in the show. Remember, Mulholland actually performed the act. This, in my opinion, is the best available description of the act today.

After Dr. Hookers death in 1935, the apparatus for the act was given to John Mulholland and Shirley Quimby. Eventually, the apparatus was passed on to Robert Davidson, one of Hookers grandsons.

In 1993, John Gaughan acquired the apparatus from Mr. Davidson. At the Third Los Angeles Conference on Magic History in November 1993, John Gaughan performed Impossibilities and Miltiades III. This was the first time since 1934 that the act had been performed. After 14 years in storage, Mr. Gaughan once again performed Impossibilities and Miltiades III at the Tenth Los Angeles Conference on Magic History in November 2007.

Lybrary.com has recently released a 102 page e-book on Dr. Samuel Hooker and his Rising Cards.

The opening acknowledgement section of the e-book, includes 23 acknowledgements. John Gaughans name is nowhere to be found and Jim Steinmeyers name is the very last name mentioned on the list. The Hooker Card Rise probably would no longer be with us if it were not for Mr. Gaughan. Mr. Gaughan should have had some type of acknowledgement in this e-book.

After the acknowledgment section is an introduction about how the e-book originated. On page 7 of the introduction section it is stated that There was no hope to see them performed, there was no recording I could watch, and even the ones who had seen John Gaughans performance remembered very little detail which could lead to further insights. The them referred to in the above quote of course was the rising card act. On the very next page, page 8, it is stated that this e-book makes for a great preparation to enjoy the scheduled performances in November 2007. I find it very strange that someone so interested in the Hooker Card Rise, enough to write a book on the subject, would rush out a final product when there WAS a chance to actually SEE the card rise IN PERSON. For those who may not know, EVERYONE had the chance to buy tickets to see Impossibilities and Miltiades III the weekend prior to the Magic History Conference. Yes, for the cost of 2 Samuel Cox Hooker and his Rising Cards e-books, ANYONE could have witnessed this wonderful bit of magic history. This, of course, does not include your airfare, but for merely 6 more e-books the flight would be covered also.

The section in the e-book entitled How Could It Be Done is the bte noire of the book. This is where a possible (?) explanation of the card rise is explained, based on what had been only READ about the past performances of the act.

Following this section are articles on three other famous any card rises from Hofzinser, Neyhart and Joseffy. These articles were reproduced from The Magic of J.N. Hofzinser by Ottokar Fischer and translated by Richard Hatch, Salon de Magie by Ken Klosterman and Gabe Fajuri, and The Marvelous Creations of Joseffy by David P. Abbott.

Following this is a six page article entitled Hooker the Person. Here you get a short biography about Hooker and his achievements in science and magic.

The next eleven pages make up Christoph Wasshubers thoughts on how the Hooker Rising Card is accomplished. This section can best be summarized by one of Chriss own statements at the start of this section of the e-book: I am sure that my theory or method is all rubbish but it is my attempt to make sense of what I have read about Hookers rising cards.

The next section (page 38) is called People in the Know. On this page, eleven people are named who either knew or know how the Hooker rising cards work. Included in this list is Jay Marshall. It is my understanding that Jay did NOT know how the Hooker rising card worked. It would have been nice if a few more details were given in this section about how Jay Marshall and Katharine Douglas Davidson Walker got the secret.

At the bottom of this page the Card March, an early effect (1914) that Dr. Hooker offered for sale by Clyde Powers is mentioned. The method for this effect, where cards rise high in the air out of a glass goblet, is not known by Christoph Wasshuber. For those interested, the explanation for this effect can be found in the beautiful program for the Tenth Los Angeles Conference on Magic History on pages 35-36.

The next section consists of 60 pages, in chronological order, of various articles, letters, etc that deal with Dr. Hooker and his act. This is the most exciting part of the e-book. Christoph Wasshuber has gathered many references (not all) from The Sphinx, NY Times, Time Magazine, Magic Circular, The Billboard, Science, Hugards Magic Monthly, Genii, and several other sources. Sadly missing is Bill Miesels notes published in Precursor Magazine.

On page 79 is the April 1967 article from the Pallbearers Review by John Mulholland. This is by far the best and most accurate description of Impossibilities and Miltiades III. It appears that this article was reprinted from Magic Circular magazine instead of Pallbearers Review. Perhaps no permission could be obtained from Karl Fulves since he was also not mentioned in the acknowledgement section.

A reprint of a section of Dai Vernons Genii column, where he very briefly mentions the Hooker rising cards, is found on page 87. He mentions that he saw the act several times in Brooklyn. He then goes on to mention that Mulholland and Dr. Bridges both got the secret. Other than a brief mention on a video taped interview, I have not been able to find references about Vernon seeing Impossibilities and Miltiades III. At the recent Conference on Magic History, there was an entire wall of letters by magicians who had been fooled by Dr. Hookers act. There was no letter from Vernon on the wall. If anyone knows of any proof that Vernon actually saw Hookers act, I would be very interested in hearing about it. Also, Dr. Bridges was not one of the names on the People in the Know (page 38 of the e-book).


Another highlight of the e-book starts on page 87. Here you will find five pages of notes taken by Gene Matsuura for the performance that he saw on November 6, 1993 at the Third Conference on Magic History. Gene is an avid collector, a great magician, and a great person. His notes were taken a few hours after witnessing Impossibilities and Miltiades III.

In the 1949 April issue of The Sphinx, John Mulholland and Shirley Quimby wrote another interesting article about Dr. Hooker. They state The variety of the effects, and the multiplicity of details seemed to atrophy the memories of all spectators. I am sure that Gene is correct on many of his thoughts, however, to prove Mulhollands point, Gene states that there were plates of glass for the front and back of houlette, glass plates removable. As shown in Greater Magic. (page 89 in e-book) The houlette did NOT have glass plates for the front and back of the houlette, only the sides. This was stated at the beginning of the show by Johnny Gaughan. The decks were also removed from the houlette by grasping them at the front and back of the houlette.

It is amazing what the mind remembers after seeing this legendary effect.

Another highlight is a letter dated May 9, 1994 from Robert Treat H. Davidson to his siblings about their Grandfather Hooker. Davidson explained how Impossibilities and Miltiades III eventually ended up in John Gaughans hands. After reading this you will have even a greater appreciation on what John Gaughan did for the magic world and makes Johns missing name in the acknowledgement section even stranger.

The last reprint is the article from The Fine Art of Hocus Pocus by John Booth.
This was written after John Booth witnessed the first performance in 1993 by John Gaughan.

I made the mistake of missing the first performance in 1993, but there was no way in hell I was going to miss the show this time around! Was it worth the cost? Without a doubtevery penny and more.

After finishing this review, I received an updated version of the e-book from Lybrary.com.

The new version now includes 1) A second theory which I think is quite a bit better than the first one, 2) Additional source documents, particularly an obituary from 1936 in a science journal which is very detailed, and 3) Personal notes of Carlo Morpurgo.

The notes from Carlo Morpurgo are also available online on the Genii Magazine web page.

If you are buying the e-book to learn the explanation for Impossibilities and Miltiades III, save your money. If you would like to have nearly everything in print on Dr. Hooker, in chronological order, then you will certainly enjoy this e-book. However, you will need to decide if the $39.00 price tag is a good buy. Be advised that there are some minor editing problems.

I feel sure that the program for the Tenth Los Angeles Conference of Magic History will eventually be available on Jim Steinmeyers web page, along with all of the other programs (except for the 1st Conference). I would highly recommend that anyone interested in Dr. Hooker and Impossibilities and Miltiades III pick up a copy. It is a 97 page full color program that has a lot on Dr. Hooker as well as much of the magic from the other LA Conferences. www.jimsteinmeyer.com


End of Review


By the way Chris, Gene Matsuura's notes were also previously published in "The Castle Keep" so they were not original with you. I also have been told that you have been searching for a set of Precursor Magazines now that I told you about Bill Miesel notes as well on the Hooker performance. I would point out all of the spelling errors in the e-book, but why should I do the proofreading of your e-book. OCR doesn't catch many errors...it needs to be proofread.

[Richard Kaufman]

Good job Gary.

[Carlo Morpurgo]

Originally posted by Carlo Morpurgo:

On a more serious note, from various sources (including the article) it looks like the following event was scripted: Gaughan names four cards then asks them to rise, but instead...the Jacks jump out. Well, I can right now assure you with 99.99% probability that when *I* saw the performance it was NOT scripted, it was a genuine(and understandable) mistake. John was preparing the wrong effect with the given deck. I was probably the only idiot in the audience that was taking a look at Jim Steinmeyer here and there, and he did not look happy in that circumstance.
John's reactions to the Jack jumping out (after he started setting up the three glasses) looked genuine. He apologized 3-4 times, saying "this must be the jumping DECK" (not Jumping Jack), and "I went ahead of myself".

After that evening, I am guessing, someone had the idea of reproducing the event in a more scripted-like fashion.

I would like to amend the above statements.

I just got hold of Bill Miesel's review of the 1993 Hooker's Impossibilites, published in Precursor, and featured in the latest version of Wasshuber's ebook.

In that article he writes:

"John now wanted three more cards to be called for and people in the audience called for the Three of Clubs, the Eight of Clubs, and the Four of Clubs. He called
for the Three of Clubs to rise but instead of the Three of Clubs rising, the Joker
rose halfway out of the deck. He went to remove the Joker, but it sank back down into the deck.
He then went to the back of the platform, took the large glass dome,...."

He then goes on explaining that the Joker rose
under the dome, went back down "coming to rest right on top of the deck" (so finally an official statement that the card does not sink back in). Then the description of the bear's head floating under the dome , and then the three previously called cards are back in the game by being called to rise while the houlette is on the book, over the glasses (three not two), and while it is suspended by ribbons.

So in summary, now the whole sequence of events appears to have been scripted like this:

a) 3 cards are called
b) Joker (or Jack) jumps out of the deck (or other similar effect NOT involving the called cards)
c) card (Jack or Joker) rises under the dome
d) bear rises under the dome
e) 1st called card rises in houlette over book over glass pedistals
f) 2nd and 3rd called cards rise on suspended houlette

On November 3rd, what happened was that John did a) but then started to pick up the glasses and setting up the book effect.
This is the moment, I think, when Steinmeyer realized that he was "going ahead of himself", skipping directly to step e), f).
John even said that himself later, he went ahead of himself.

Before reading Miesel's article, it was natural for me to theorize that since this happened during the second 2007 performance, then it might have been made into a scripted event for the following shows. This is especially true because I knew of NO written records that would mention that in 1993 and prior performances the last 3 rising cards are called BEFORE the dome effects (where they do not play a role). This is not in Matsura's notes (which are misleading in this and other respects), not in Mullholland's notes, and not even in Steinmeyer's Magic article.

But, after reading Miesel's review it makes complete sense to me that it was indeed scripted, and that Gaughan simply skipped ahead a bit. I apologize if in any way I sounded like demeening Gaughan's performance. I understand that the whole thing requires a great deal of coordination and memory on his part, so it's understandable that he could have forgotten a step.

Carlo

[Carlo Morpurgo]

Continuing the train of thoughts...

Yesterday I observed that Miesel's review, although it's one of the many, has in it a detail that seems to "fit", that of the three final cards called before the dome effects, and it also fits with what I saw and what other people saw. The fact that this observation was made in 1993 increases the likelihood that this was a scripted event, at least in several performances, if not all.

If this is true, it naturally begs the question: "Why?". I am guessing that a possible answer is "To give time to the assistant to prepare a deck with the three called cards in the back". There is NO question in my mind that the last three cards that rise are set in the back of the houlette, and a spring mechanism is used in order to activate the infamous roller that makes them rise. The question is how to make sure that the cards are the ones called for.
I could only think of stooges, but now it makes more sense to think that between the moment when the three cards are called and the final rises, the deck is prepared by the assistant and placed on top of the table that hosted the decks, on the left, through the side curtains, while other quite absorbing events are taking place, say for one the joker rising under the glass dome. Quite a big deal! No one would want to watch the left table, not even me!

This setup requires of course that the deck for the dome effects is tossed away, and the new prepared deck is picked up. This is a detail that I cannot recall, but at this point I would bet $$$ that the deck was indeed changed. One of the things I would want to pay close attention to, if I could watch the whole thing again, is precisely when Gaughan changes decks - there were several decks used so it's diffcult to recall such details.

Finally, rumor has it that someone witnessed a "deck switch", on top of a table. I never mentioned this since it came from rumors, but perhaps now this rumor has a place, even though I do not think in the above setup there was a need to switch, but just to add a new deck to the table.

Carlo

[Pete Biro]

Gary: GREAT review. I have a bit of info but prefer to not tip. I prefer to keep my feelings, "that I witnessed real mojo" intact. :genii:

[Carlo Morpurgo]

Chris Wasshuber was quick to point out that in the last paragraph of the 6th or 7th (official) version of his ebook, he also mentions that

"I also suspect that at one point a deck is switched or cards are added to a deck, not by the performer but by a backstage assistant either through yet another mechanism built into table and stage, or when the performer covers at certain moments a particular area where a deck of cards has been placed. The reason for my suspicion is that freely chosen cards are being reused for the rising effects where the houlette is on the book, suspended by ribbons or under the glass dome. This gives a backstage assistant time to prepare a deck and make it available to the performer."

This version I got by email from him just yesterday, and the previous versions did not contain such paragraph. I honestly did not read the entire thing just yesterday. (Because it changes all the time here and there, so actually one should re-read everything). I arrived at the conclusions indicated above independently.
Now I would like to see how even that paragraph will "evolve" in the future editions. Just watch.

But what was important for me, was to point out the TIMELINE of the reviews, of the effects, the details that FIT, the logic of the whole thing.

Certainly credit is due to Wasshuber for having also mentioned a possible deck switch, in his very last version. I should say that the only logic there seems to be based on the observation (which I had already made 3 months ago) that the same three cards were reused, not new ones. For me, this implied that the cards must have been already in the back immediately before the rise, and so I theorized stooges. But the latest developments with the Miesel's review made me change my mind. Certainly the thoughs I expressed in my last two posts could not possibly have been triggered by the single paragraph above, which, again, I had not even read.


Finally, the "rumors" I was referring to were NOT due to Wasshuber's paragraph (which I had not read). They were real rumors I heard from phone conversations, 2-3 weeks after the second performance. Someone (two people actually) told me that someone else witnessed a deck switch on top of a table. But I believe that this switch or addition was done simply through the left curtains, perhaps during the glass dome effects.

Carlo

[Richard Kaufman]

There is so much bogus information in Wasshuber's book (from what other people have told me) that it contributes nothing of value to the discussion about the Hooker Card Rise--it only serves to muddle the discussion.

The idea that he would put out such a book (and blatantly copy Jim Steinmeyer's advertising banner in an attempt to sell it on websites) is arrogance of the highest order. He couldn't even be bothered to fly to California to see a performance, so what he should really do, if he had any conscience or desire to maintain any credibility, is withdraw the e-book from publication instead of constantly updating it, including false rumors, and making himself look even more foolish than he did in the first place!

[Bill Mullins]

Miltiades has a new job.

[Richard Kaufman]

Miltaedes has no body!