Jon Racherbaumer - Sticks & Stones Number 2.pdf - J - animga

STICKS & STONES NUMBER 2

A leaflet for the left hand

This is an undated, previously unpublished effect by Ed Marlo. I

found it amongst my scribbled notes. When reading it something in

the plot seemed fuzzily familiar. Finally it dawned on me: it's a

variation of the Vincent Dalban problem/plot from the Jinx. If you

have a copy of Hierophant #2, refer to "Notes On The Lie Speller".

Also see Marlo's three methods in Hex ! (1969) under the title,

"Mental Lie".

The standard presentation for the Dalban plot is as follows: The

spectator selects a card and returns it to the deck. He runs through

the cards and names each one as he comes to it. When he comes to

his selection he miscalls it. The performer immediately stops him,

catching him in a lie.

Marlo added a new slant by having the spectator think of a card.

The cards are called out as in the Dalban approach; however, this

time all the cards are named and the selection is miscalled.

Afterwards the performer names the mental selection.

The following presentation is offbeat and difficult to reconstruct, yet

its procedure is clean and direct. Call it...

Mindreading Joker

EFFECT - A Joker is removed from the deck. A spectator freely

shuffles the cards and selects one. The selection is placed in his

pocket without being noted. The performer fans the pack face-down

and the Joker is inserted. The cards are cut a few times and the

pack is handed to the spectator. The performer turns his back.

Now the spectator is told to look at the card in his pocket and

replace it. Next he's told to call off the cards in the pack; however,

when he comes to the Joker he's to miscall it and name the card he

has in his pocket. For example, when he comes to the Joker,

assuming that the Three of Hearts is in his pocket, instead of saying

"Joker" he says "Three of Hearts". The whole pack is dealt and each

card if named. While his back is still turned, the performer asks for

the Joker. Holding the Joker to his ear, he explains: "The Joker will

whisper the name of the card in your pocket." The performer

concludes the effect by naming the selection.

WORKING

1) Find a card with an imperfection on it--some mark or speck that

will identify it. If you want to be sure, prior to the effect pencil-dot a

known card on its upper left and lower right corners. This marked

card is your key card. Assume this marked card is the 9D.

2) Your deck, of course, contains a Joker. Hand the cards to the

spectator and ask him to remove the Joker. Have the cards

thoroughly shuffled and have an unknown card removed and placed

in the spectator's pocket.

3) Next the Joker must be placed face-down on top of the marked

card. You can do this yourself. Simply insert it above the key card

and have the deck cut several times. A superior approach--one used

by Marlo on other occasions—is to have the spectator replace the

Joker into the spread. How? Simple. Just use the Classic Force

technique and force the Joker's "return" to the deck, which is

working backwards and will prove to be easier.

4) Turn your back and ask the spectator to look at the card in his

pocket and replace it. Now have him turn the deck face-up and

name each card as it comes to it, miscalling the Joker and naming

the pocketed card.

5) Listen for the 9D to be called. The next card he names will be the

selection. The rest is build-up and showmanship. Emphasize the

impossibility of knowing anything.

- Edward Marlo, with details supplied by Jon Racherbaumer

HEUREKA

When he isn't resurrecting the ghost of Hofzinser and putting pins

into Marlo dolls, another publisher is fond of scanning the Published

Record for reinventions and rediscoveries--effects and techniques

that were published years ago and prior to present claims. He's

choosey when it comes time to cast aspersions and through

hindsight and second-sight, imply that someone has lifted another's

trick. This column is dedicated to the proposition that reinvention

does happen; that curious coincidences do occur. Yet we shouldn't

leap to wrong conclusions, distort facts, and read between literal

lines. Let's be content with possibilities and remain fascinated with

verisimilitude. Here's an example:

The "McDonald Aces" is familiar to most cardmen. The routine

appeared in Chapter Four of Dai Vernon's More Inner Secrets of

Card Magic. Later, Tannen's published Garcia's version in New Stars

of Magic (Volume 1 - Number 2).

I thought the McDonald Aces were interesting and would have been

impressed to see "Mac" McDonald, with his one arm, perform it. I

agree, however, with S. Leo Horowitz when he wrote: (Speaking

about four Ace effects...) "In methods where double face cards are

used, you are told to lay the cards out in a crazy order of pattern,

some face up and some cards face down. They are gathered up, laid

out in rows, the process being repeated several times until the

double face cards are in the right position to proceed." This excerpt

is found in Aces High, a manuscript published in 1947. The

McDonald Ace routine isn't wholly confusing, but the cuts, initial Ace

switch, and other bits aren't my idea of immediate clarity . Garcia's

embellishments embody some subtleties and each Ace vanishes in a

different manner, but the overall effect isn't as straight-forward as

my standards demand.

Here's the point to ponder: In Page Wright's Notebook (1933) you'll

find a routine on p. 53 called "One Armed Poker". Ta-da! In its own

words: "This is offered as a tale with a moral, but a sad tale. For it

concerns a magician who once, in a tragic accident, lost one arm--

lost it entirely. To make it worse, it was the right arm, and he was

right handed and could do practically nothing, so he spent all his

time playing poker." The writer later admits the effect "is nothing

but the usual four Ace effect... but the patter provides a little

different plot and the execution with one hand makes the effect

appear more remarkable—a startling piece of sleight-of-hand."

Believe it or not, this routine uses three double-faced Aces as in the

McDonald routine and the general effect is Transposition-ala-Ace-

Assembly, only four X cards are dealt onto each Ace rather than the

standard three. (Poker hands contain five cards.) The Wright

handling is NOT the same as the McDonald Aces, although the

"vanish" is basically the same and Wright further credits the move

to an effect called "Whirlwind of Wizardry" or a book by that name.

Was there a relationship between "One Armed Poker" and

McDonald's Ace routine?

Karl Fulves's new book is on the stands. Dover publications of New

York published the 113-page book and it's beautifully produced. It's

simply called Self-Working Card Tricks: 72 Foolproof Card Miracles

for the Amateur Magician . It contains 42 illustrations by Joseph K.

Schmidt and, for the lowly price of $1. 50, features the biggest

bargain available to watchful cardworkers.

The book is truly a nice product. Fulves credits a few others here

and there; the rest are ignored. I'll comment on specific items in

subsequent issues; however, I was struck by an obvious

contradiction. Fulves sends a free leaflet to subscribers from time to

time, depending on the winds of controversy. He calls these freebies

Interlocutor , a role he apparently relishes. I'm curious as to what

things or which persons he's acting as a self-appointed go-between?

No matter. In Interlocutor-6 , dated January 5, 1976, he explains:

"Magic is a hobby. I earn no money from it." Perhaps he means that

he makes no " profit " from magic? He obviously earns money. After

all, he sells his books and magazines. The Dover book is probably a

contract deal and Fulves writes that he's working on "a large book

of general magic contracted for by a major publisher. This is an odd

approach for a hobbyist, especially one claiming to earn no money

from his hobby. The credibility gap widens. His Walter Gibson

impersonations will have to improve!

Getting back to the Dover book, readers will find many queer items.

For example, my eyes quickly caught "Double Prophet" on page 63.

This version has elements found in "Another Problem Posed" from

The Artful Dodges of Eddie Fields. The effects are similiar in that

two selections are predicted, the selection procedure uses random

cuts, ends with a group of face-up cards, and the face-down cards

at each end of the face-up group become the random (?) selections.

The methods are different. The Marlo methods in the Fields book

work. The method in Fulves's book will not work. If you follow the

directions on pp. 63-65 you'll note that after the Cut-Deeper Force

actions there are two face-up portions. This is not indicated in

Figure 22 or mentioned in the text. This kind of prediction effect

demands preliminary shuffles. After reading "Double Prophet", if

you're still interested in performing such an effect, try the following

method:

1) Preset the red Jacks on top and bottom of the deck, or use

Marlo's impromptu get-ready from the Fields book, Steps 1 through

4. For purposes of this description assume you've set the Jacks.

Table the deck and execute a few Riffle Shuffles. Retain the Jacks

on top and bottom.

2) Hand the deck to the spectator to place under the table, out of

sight . Make your written predictions. Then ask the spectator to lift

off about a quarter of the deck and turn it face-up on top of the

deck. Further explain that he's to "cut deeper" and turn

approximately two-thirds of the uppermost cards over, replacing

them on top of the deck.

3) To complete the random cutting actions, ask the spectator to

give the pack a straight cut. Take back the deck and ribbon spread

them face-down onto the table. A group of face-up cards will be in

the middle of the spread. Point out that this topsy-turvy condition

was arrived at by chance cutting.

4) Remove the face-down cards on either side of the face-up

portion as per "Another Problem Posed". Show the red Jacks and

your matching prediction.

- Edward Marlo, "Method Four to Another Problem Posed"

In fairness to Fulves, "Double Prophet" will work if you spread the

cards between your hands, keeping the face-up section on the

bottom hidden beneath the face-down portion above it . He does

not, however, mention the existence of this other face-up section;

hence, many readers may be momentarily or lastingly perplexed.

AENOS

The spectator looked astonished and said, "That's fantastic! I don't

believe it!" He continued in this fashion until I calmly shrugged and

said:

"I know... it's a marvelous effect..." The spectator let me finish, but

he looked mildly puzzled. Finally he asked, "What do you mean--

' effect' ?" Good question. What do we mean when we use the word

"effect"?

Terminology in magic has never been a scientific affair. No precise,

universal lexicon exists wherein we find agreement and

understanding. Writers of magic literature habitually use the word

"effect" and we use it as part of our banter, everyone assuming its

meaning is self-evident. Yet if we're asked for a succinct, complete,

and detailed definition, we're hard-pressed. A casual explanation

might go like this: "The word 'effect' means a brief description of

what happens during a trick. It entails everything that apparently

happens in the eyes of the audience." Unfortunately the subject is

more complicated than this.

The Random House dictionary gives thirteen definitions for the word

EFFECT. Three seem applicable to magic: (1) Something that is

produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence; (2) A mental

impression produced, as by a painting or speech; (3) An illusory

phenomenon.

All three definitions apply to magic. The performer is a primary

cause of what happens. He produces the effect; he causes the

result. The audience receives a mental impression of what's going

Jon Racherbaumer - Sticks & Stones Number 2.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: