98 Eucpxn BuncER them if they wanted to see some magic. I suddenly asked myself: Why am I doing it this way? The answer was clear: That's how euerybody does it! Like a good little monkey, I was doing exactly what all the other monkeys do. And they, of course, do what they had seen still other monkeys do. (Buddhists call this the Wheel of Suffering.) We are all being good little monkeys, and I was one too. Then and there I took a step that, when I look back on it, really was somewhat courageous. I said: Enough is enough! No more! No more walking up to people like the strolling guitarist. No more indoor street magic for me! When I moved to a new restaurant, CafE Royal, in the late 1980s, I simply explained to Royal Faubion, the owner, that he would need to instruct the service staff to ask each table, after-not before!-coffee was served, whether they would like to have a visit from "the fabulous house magrcian." And that is the way we did it. When I came to Biggs restaurant, I explained the same thing to Peter Salchow, the owner, that this is how "it worked": waiters asked each table after dinner. If the answer was affrrmative, the waiter then got a chair and added it to the table. Then he found me and, very often, introduced me to the table. Much better theater! My way of doing things, by the way, makes better sense from the standpoint of the restaurant as well as the performer. From the perspective of the restaurant, the aim is that every patron have a great experience without any awkward moments. To have to look the magician in the eye and explain that you are discussing business, in my view, is a very awkward moment It is far better, from the restaurant's perspective, that patrons be told about the magician's presence by a third party. If they now decide to say, "No, thanks, we're talking about business so we don't have time for magic tonight," the refusal is an utterly simple thing to say, with no emotional moment of awkwardness at all. And, of course, in pitching my presence to patrons, the service person can say things about me that I could never say about myself without seeming to be an insufferable egotist. I think, however, that performing in a lounge is the best approach for what I would want to do. The restaurant would continue turning its tables without a slow-down for magic shows, the performer is never in the way of the wait staff, the performer never need approach a table and, for the restaurant, patrons are being encouraged to visit the lounge where larger profits usually reside. I might add, finally, that, over the years, I have used the material in the lecture about recognition, appreciation, and praise when I have given talks to corporate executives about making their workplaces more magical.
tg83
Schulien's restaurant closed in January 1999 after Charlie Schulien, Matt's son, died. A new restaurant with magicia ns, 0'Donovan's, opened on the same site. The third edition, in hardcover, of The Magic of Matt Schulien, is available from Magic lnc. for $30. Frroullil It seems quite appropriate, as well as an honor and a great pleasure, for me to write this foreword to Eugene Burger's monogtaph on Matt Schulien's truly fabulous card discoveries. Over 20 years ago, I had the heady pleasure of writing The Magic of Matt Schulien.I was,let me hasten to say, a uery yonng man at the time, and-as I noted in the bookgot thrown into writing it primarily because I suggested that it would be a shame if one weren't written. Full of youthful enthusiasm,I plunged into the writing, knowing full well I was in the presence of an authentic original, a truly "natural" entertainer. I discovered he was often heavy-handed in his technique, or lack of it and, conversely, breathtakingly subtle sometimes in his magical thinking and handlings. Even more importantly, however, I discovered that it really did not matter to his customers and audiences which he was. They were all having too good a time to care. People still talk about Matt in Chicago, and he left us in 1969. I am pleased to say that magic still flourishes strongly at the restaurant where the book was written with his son, Chuck (Charles) Schulien, his grandson and Chuck's son, Bobby, and Al James on hand to entertain the paying customers. AII do a frne job with the emphasis on fun and not on technique. I am also proud to note that the third edition of The Magic of Matt Schulien has just been published by Magic, Inc. As was the case with the second edition (where a section of tricks contributed in memory of Matt by fellow bar magicians was added), a new section was also added to the third edition. No new text this time, but a selection of photos showing the Marshalls and the author "a few years older" and the current magical entertainers who perform there. I can recommend the book highly ("The money has all been spent," is a Jay Marshall line which is uery appropriate here), for I am far enough away from the book now to become objective and many people I respect in magic have confirmed my judgment of the magic that was Matt Schulien-and which I feel I have pretty well captured in the book. Chicago has always (well, for as long as I can recall, at least) had frne close-up performers (I won't attempt a list for I'd surely forget someone and the names are well known to all magic lovers), not the least of whom, albeit one of the latest, is Eugene Burger. Eugene first came to my attention as the featured performer and prime mover of "Spirit Theatre," a delightful, intimate pseudo-seance which showcased his considerable dramatic abilities. Magic,Inc. will publish his book on this show sometime in 1983. I have both seen the show and read the manuscript and can highly recommend it to anyone who loves mystery and theatricality in magic. It is as a close-up performer, however, that Eugene has chosen to earn his
ON Mam Scuur,rEN's Fasul,ous Ceno DtscovERIES 101 Iiving and it is as a close-up magician that he has and will continue to make his mark as a magician. Eugene ranks with the best I have ever seen in his ability to evoke laughter and screams of surprise from people and I don't know any better measure of a magician's merit. Eugene has always used quite a number of Matt's effects, albeit handled in his own style and fitted to his own personality and this is what this book is all about. I'll just tell you about my surprise when I frrst saw Eugene present his handling of Matt's "Corner in the Glass." Matt had always presented this as a fun thing, tapping the glass with the bowl of a spoon until the corner of a chosen card dropped into the glass. He would then roar with laughter and so would his audience. As described in this book, however, Eugene does it "heavy" and people scream when the corner drops into the glass and seem to believe that, somehow, Eugene made the card fall apart. I couldn't believe the reaction he got with it! I know that, somewhere, Matt is still doing his version of the "Corner in the Glass." I belieue that he must grin whenever Eugene does hls version in approval of the reaction and in appreciation of the difference. A message lies therein for all of us, one I know I appreciate more for having read this monograph of Eugene's. I trust you will, too! Phil Willmarth
L02 Eucpxn BuncER T[toniufi ail[[tu E[[uul$N I want to discuss-and give presentational strategies for-three marvelous card effects which were performed by Chicago's Matt Schulien. All ofthe effects are discoveries ofselected, signed cards. These discoveries, are, I believe, among the strongest card plots yet devised by card conjurors. In each, the action is direct and simple for the spectators to follow. The discovery occurs in each case as a complete surprise-and, therefore, the magical content of each of these effects is very high. The great impact these effects have upon audiences is due, I suspect, primarily to the fact that in each case the selected card is partially mutilated. In the first instance, it is folded; in the second, its corner is torn off; in the third, the card becomes wet and, usually, a bit soggy. You wouldn't want to return it to your pack. I am well aware that even the merest thought of mutilating one's playing cards causes many magicians to shudder and cringe-for, after all, you are then left with an incomplete deck and some of the effects in your performing repertoire may now be impossible to perform. If you are willing to carry two decks, or if you are unable to undetectably switch in a second, full deck, then these discoveries are not for you-for that is the price you must be willing to pay to perform these masterpieces. For a moment,let's look at this question of mutilating playing cards. Why is it that card tricks that involve the mutilation or destruction of the selected card have such strong impact among laymen? The question isn't diffrcult to answer. Aside from the obvious sadomasochistic implications which some might see, the answer has to do with how most people perceive playing cards. A deck of cards is the kind of thing that almost always needs to be complete if it is to have any use. If you want to play Hearts or Poker or any card game-and this is what most people do with cards which, in turn, colors their perceptions of them-then this deck must be complete. Spectators, in other words, perceive decks of cards as things to be kept together. When a card is suddenly discovered folded or torn, this is almost always completely unexpected by laymen. Folding a card or ripping off one of its corners are the last things that spectators would do to a playing cardbecause a deck needs to be complete to have any use or value. I can, of course, sympathize technically with performers who want to keep their decks complete. At the same time, I confess that I feel they are sacrifrcing a high degree of theatricality in this technical decision. It is surely much better to carry that extra deck and learn to switch it into play deceptively. As I view these things, theatricality is the bottom line when it comes to entertaining close-up presentation. Consider, for a moment, Matt Schulien's signature trick: "The Card on the Wall."As Matt performed it, it was theater at its best-with cards flying in all directions. You need only to look at the photograph reproduced on page 143 of Phil Willmarth's
ON Mam ScsulrEN's FeeuI,ous Cenn DrscovERrES 103 The Magic of Matt Schulien-my favorite Matt Schulien photograph, in fact-and you can see what I am talking about. Can you imagine a stronger closing for a magic performance? Other performers, of course, have attempted to "tidy up" the trick: a rubber band around the pack will prevent the cards from flying aII over and will, consequently make clean up so much easier. In the same way, using a blob of wax will free you from needing to carry around two thumbtacks. Bu! stop, and look at what is lost.It is the very fact that the cards are flying in all directions that generates and intensifres the theatricality of this effect. Look at the picture of Matt performing it! People in Chicago-laymen-still talk to me about seeing Matt do it! Similarly, while wax may make the selected card cling mysteriously to the wall or ceiling, a very good effect, Matt's effect really was differentand, I suspect, far more puzzling. The thumbtack was inserted into the side of the deck before it was thrown at the wall. And then, suddenly, there was the signed card stuck to the wall with that thttmbtack! Very mysterious, don't you think? "The Card on the Wall" and the three effects I want to discuss here are pretty much the same "trick" that can produce four different "effects" as the layman sees these things. In all four cases, the structure of the methodology, the secret procedure, is much the same: (1) The selected card is secretly brought to the top ofthe deck. (2) The card is palmed off at the top (3) An additional step (folding, tearing, shooting under the tablecloth, or secretly inserting a secret, extra thumbtack) is taken. The additional step (3) really is what determines the effect from the audience's perspective. From the magician's point of view, however, the trick (the secret procedure) is much the same. One "trick," so to speak, that can produce four different "effects." Once you learn the procedures in step (3), you will add not one but three (or four) new, sensational card effects to your repertoire. Exciting, isn't it? Best of all, it is all rather simple to do if yort practice the moves and rehearse the show. That, incidentally, is one of the things that always impressed and intrigued me about Matt Schulien's magic: It is simple and not complicated. Matt insisted that all a card man needs to know is (1) a force and (2) a steal. Phil Willmarth points out that Matt really meant two things by "steal": (a) controlling the card to the top of the deck, and ft) palming it off. I can hear the outraged cries of cardmen who will insist that this is a total oversimplification of things-and that a respectable card man needs to know much, much more.I, myself would probably add the ability to do an unsuspected false shuffle to this list. But, is Matt's suggestion really an oversimplifrcation? What does one need to be able to do to entertain laymen with a pack of cards? This really is a basic question for every self-proclaimed magician personally to consider. The sad thing is that we all think we already know the answer.
L04 EucBivB BuncER [fiunoruru I never met Matt Schulien and I never saw him perform-except once, on local Chicago television, when I was a very young child at the MystoMagic stage of awareness. I remember Matt himself only vaguely. What specific effects he performed on that occasion, I do not remember at all. Nevertheless, Matt Schulien has had a profound influence upon my own magical thinking and work. Curious, isn't it-that someone you never met could have a deep influence on you. My knowledge of Matt has come secondhand. Though I have spent many enjoyable evenings at Schulien's Restaurant in Chicago watching Charlie, Matt's son, perforrn these card tricks, my first real acquaintance with Matt Schulien and his magic came in 1952 when I read Frances Marshall's book, With Frances in Magicland, and especially its chapter, "Not the Best, but the Biggest." When I frrst read it, I had a strong personal reaction to the picture that Frances painted of big, big Matt with his laughter and fun and his marvelous card tricks. This wonderfully warm picture of people enjoying themselves has remained in my memory. One paragraph in particular literally jumped off the page at me. I wonder how it strikes you? He's no great magical technician. A force and a steal, remember? That's all you need. Matt works with cards stuck here and there and all about him, and sometimes magical diehards shudder that somebody sees Matt steal a card. Matt knows that the big thing is to have fun, and his patrons are so busy having fun, they pay little attention to tiny things like an Ace stuck under Matt's thigh. Matt fools then. Don't ever think that he doesn't. He's an absolute, if rough-diamond master of misdirection. When your selected card ends up in your own wine glass, sitting right out in front of you all the time, well, then, brother, you've been misdirected-plenty! May I tell you that when I frrst read these words they had a very great impact upon me-not unlike those experiences that humanistic psychologists have called "Aha! Experiences." I was 14 years old at the time and utterly absorbed in magic, but young and confused and unsure, even of what the real goals of performing might be, and certainly completely bewildered about how to draw others, in an entertaining way, to this fabulous thing, magic, to which I had been drawn. I underlined the above paragraph (as I did in those days) and reread it. And, then I read it a third time. Through the years, these words have stayed with me. I was attending Beloit College in Wisconsin in 1959, when someone I had never heard of before, named Philip Willmarth, wrote a book about Matt and his magic. I remember sitting by the window of my room in a college fraternity house (!) reading this book. It was, I think, one of the very last
Ou Mam ScuulIEN's Fesurous Cano DlscovERIES 105 magic books I read before a 15 year, shall we say, "retirement into the forest" during which conjuring was something I hardly ever thought about or worked on or played with. Before you joke that Phil's book "drove me from magic," I would think, rather, that it took about 15 years for the real message to hit home. When it did, not only did I get back into magic as a hobby,I soon quit my job and became a full-time professional. I had begun to realize, you see, with the help of some supportive friends, that this was somethingl could do as well. Not the same way as Matt did it, of course, but in my own way.I deeply enjoy people as Matt did, and having fun with them was something I felt I could do in my own way, based on my own personality, talents, and gifts. Besides, "earning one's living" by having fun wit}n people seemed-and still seems-a rather delightful course for one's life to take. (The philosopher Alan Watts told me in L973, ten days before he died, that,'A sensible person gets paid for playing. That is the art of life." I admit that, in L973,I had no real understanding of what he was talking about.) Through the years, Phil's book on Matt Schulien and his magic has remained my all-time favorite close-up magic book-and it is one of the few books which I personally own. While book-learning can sometimes be very different-I can say that I learned something of great value and importance from The Magic of Matt Schulien. Not just the tricks! T}re picture of this most wonderful man and magician, and the joy he is creating, remains far more important than any of Matt's tricks, though the effects explained happen to include some of the most d,azzling in all of close-up magic. No, the picture has always been far more important than the tricks. Granted, you can make money scaring people-and I have-but if you're going to do card tricks,let's make it fun for people and not tedious, boring, confusing, or diffrcult to follow. People will pay to have fun but they won't pay (a second time) to see overly complicated card tricks boringly performed. Card tricks appear-don't they?-in a social context: the context of fun and good-times or, alternatively, the context of boredom and dullsville and, "Mary, what's that magician supposed to be doing, anyway?" People will pay to be involved in the frrst social context; few will pay a second time to be bored. Some will, but do you want to perform for them? I submit that the social context the commercial conjuror is able to create is surely as important for his success as his specifrc card tricks. (In case you didn't notice, that is a shocking and revolutionary idea for card men to consider.) Simply see the picture for yourself of Matt Schulien doing his card tricks and everyone having fun. One surprise after another. Involvement and laughter and e4joyment. Sit down, seriously, and look at the many pictures in Phil Willmarth's book. The pictures tell a story that words can only haltingly tell. Even though Matt himself is gone, the memory remains.
106 EucpNn BuncER T[lg 0arf, [ I[l0 ffiuffi00fiN Before table I Ihe outer end of the card is folded over the center by curling the right fingers inward. 2 The inner end of the card is then folded over the center by using the thumb and its base. 3 The right thumb presses on the center of the tri-folded card, forcing it to buckle in the center. 4 The thumb scoots under the lower half and folds it upward. ) beginning the effect, I make sure there is a matchbook on the or bar. Personally, I always carry a wide-size book of paper matches. I make sure the matchbook is open and not closed. This will make things easier later. If I am standing in a group,I will ask a gentleman to"be the table" by holding his hands together, palms upward. On this "tab1e" I place a marking pen (to sign the card) and the open book of matches. When I take the cards from the case, I will place the card case on the "table" as well. Later, I will pick up the matches off the spectator's hand. If possible, I will have a woman who is wearing a watch on her left hand select the card-as you will see, the watch will be a strong misdirectional point in the presentation. The card is selected and the spectator is told to write her first name on the face of it-being careful to hold it so that I can't see it-since "it's rnore challenging for me that way." I may ask that the lady write "her first nan1.e and telephone number"-amplifying that old chestnut with the straight-faced request: And, please, write clearly because I auction them offto truckers on Sunday ... and they get a little testy if they can't read the numbers." (Yes, I can imagine a 19 or 20- year-old performer attempting that sequence-and it falling very flat.) Holding the deck in my left hand, I ask her to show her card to everyone present. I riffle the outer left corner with my left thumb, ask the spectator to say "Stop." I cut the deck at this point: "Replace the card right there." She does, and I replace the top half, keeping a break with my left fourth finger. At this point, my technique takes a sharp turn from the card work I so often see. Here, frrst of all,l stop! I do not do anything further with the cards. I do not immediately start cutting them or shuffling them, as we frequently see. In fact,I lose interest in the cards completely!And this is precisely what so many magrcians do not do. Instead, they immediately begin their control procedure, evidently wanting to get the card to the top as soon as possible, so they can get on with the trick! Psychologically, I feel this is wrong. Once the card is returned to the deck, most observant spectators will keep their eyes on the cards-hardly the best psychological moment to execute a pass or any control procedure. Therefore, the first thing that I do is stop messing with the cards completely. My hands almost freeze. I look the spectator directly in the eyes and begin a short monologue "I can do this in two ways. About 30Vo of the time I do it psychically.The rest of the time I cheat! Here, let's go psychic! My psychic impression is that your card was ... red ... and that it was a Heart!" Here, I actually give my psychic impression. Why not? It's an amusing little ESP game you can play with yourself without the spec-
Otr Mem Scuur,IEN's Fenulous Ceno DlscormRIES L07 tators ever knowing about it. Just glve your psychic impression and mentally keep note of how you're doing. While I am delivering the above monologue, I casually riffle the front of the deck with my right fingers-still maintaining the break. I have used this stratery for some years now and I find that invariably the sound of the riffling deceives the ear and the mind-for spectators, upon hearing the sound, look away from the cards and up at my face. I have their eyes and I execute a pass or whatever control I might choose to use. The monologue, then, serves two purposes: first, it reestablishes me and not the cards as the important thing here and, second, it is my cover for the control and the top palm. I do not, of course, know exactly when I will palm the card during the monologue. I do know that at one point I will "have" the spectators' eyes-and at that moment I will do it. If a spectator seems intent on watching the deck, I will use his or her name-with its rather predictable response (the named spectator immediately looking up at you as you palm the card). Obviously, if the spectator even suspects that you have palmed the card, all is lost and the effect will have very little impact. After gving my psychic impression of the card, the spectator will tell me if I am correct or incorrect. In either case, my response is the same, "Isn't the mind wonderful?" If I am correct, I will add "On to cheating!" The next thing is to fold the card which is now palmed in your right hand. Basically, the card is folded between the frngers and the thumb-first in thirds, then in half again. If I am sitting, my hand will drop below the edge of the table as I do this (fig.5 is an audience view). If I am standing behind a bar,I may cross my arms and place them on the edge of the bar. Leaning forward, my right hand folds the card behind the edge of the bar. If I am standirrg in a group, I will place my hands on my hips or cross my arms at my chest (fig.6 is an audience view)-I can fold the card in either of these positions. Alternately, I might put my right hand (with the palmed card) directly on the shoulder of the person standing on my right, and gently move her a bit closer into the circle. My hand then drops down and behind the person's back, and I fold the card. The cover for this folding, of course, is what the spectator is doing with the cards. First, I have her mix or shuflle the cards, and then I ask her to cut the cards and complete the cut. I am interested in what the spectator is doing and the other spectators soon become interested, too. Consequently, the secret folding of the card is not in any way some insurmountable obstacle. Believe De, if you sit down with 3 decks of cards and go through all of them-folding with one hand L62 individual cards including the Jokers, I'd be very surprised if
7 The right first finger and thumb slip the folded card's lower end between the tops of the matches and the back of the book. 8 As the first finger completes pushing the folded card completely behind the matches, the thumb begins folding a single match forward. 108 Eucruo BuRcpn you didn't have the folding down perfectly at the end of this exercise. The folded card is now held in the right hand. The "LJ" of the fold is downward. The top edges rest between the first finger and thumb. The next procedure is to load the folded card into the matchbook. This is accomplished under the following cover: The spectator is told to place the pack, face down, on her left palm-adding, "The one with the nice watch." As this is being said, the left hand picks up the open matchbook. The hands come together. The open cover of the matchbook enters between the frrst and second fingers which are held together to shield the folded card. The folded card is then moved downward ,,/, U"t i"J it e -"t.t es. The left thumb and first finger immediately \ remove a match, place it on the table, and close the matchbook and place it on the table in front of you. If I am standing in a group, I place the matchbook on the spectator's hands-the "table." I load the card regularly while standing up surrounded and no one ever sees it. The line, "The hand with the nice watch," always gets a response. Once I have placed the matchbook down, I take hold of the spectatoy's hand by the wrist-and I move it closer to me as I say,looking around at the other spectators, "It's the old watch trick, but it always works." Releasing my hold on the spectator's hand, I say,"Look, you cut the cards. Wouldn't it be amazing if your card were on the top of the deck?"The spectator replies affirmatively. I pick up the top card and, without looking at it myself, show it to the others, saying somewhat triumphantly,"Wonder of wonders, here it is!' It's always interesting to see just how the spectators will tell me that I have failed. Since I haven't had the card shown around to everyone present, the responsibility doesn't fall on just one person. Usually, the selector will look at one of the others and together they will tell me that this is not the selected card. I act a bit embarrassed and ask if I might have a second chance. I have performed this effect professionally well over a thousand times, and on four occasions people have said "No" to the request for a "second chance." Since all four were smiling, I smiled too, and said, "I'm glad you,'re not in charge here!'-and proceeded with the routine without a problem. I replace the card on top of the deck, which still rests on the spectator's palm. I now pick up the match and the matchbook,light the match, and toss the matchbook directly in front of the "assistant" without looking at it. Holding the lit match in my right hand, I again take hold of her hand in my left hand, and say, "In an effort to find your card I will now set your hand on fire!" This last line invariably gets a strong reaction from everyone present, especially the young lady whose wrist I am now holding so firmly! If she should now say, as spectators very often do in this situation, "l'll tell yort the card," I reply, "It's too late now! Look at it this way: It's a small price to pay for a miracle!" I wave the lit match over her hand and then bring it down quickly so that it almost touches the top of the deck. I say, "Bangl"and blow out the match. I look up at the spectators and say,"That was a sound effect."
ON Mam ScuulIEN's Fesulous Cano DtscotreRIES 109 Carefully, I remove all of the cards except the top card from the spectator's hand and place them on the table. Now, picking up the single remaining card from her hand, but still not looking at it myself,I say,Are you ready for the miracle?" The spectator replies. I continue; "Name your card out loud." She names the card-say, the Seven of Clubs. I look at the card I am holding, smile, and say, "Not only has your card changed into the Jack of Spades, but your narrle and telephone nurnber haue completely disappearedl" This always produces a good reaction. I immediately pick up the deck and begin looking through it-as if searching for the card. I look up at her and ask that she name the card again. I look down, pause, and then look up and say, "Do you see that matchbook? Open it up." The spectator opens the matchbook and finds the card. As she begins to unfold it , I say, "Is your nanle still on it?'lwant her to reply verbally to this question so that the others present can share the effect with her-when she realizes that it is! As you can see, this presentation moves from apparent failure on the part of the magician, to a rather astounding success. Let me tell you a secret: too much perfection is boring. In this presentation, we are taking a hint from the tightrope walker who feigns a fall and, thereby, gets the audience stirred up and emotionally charged and involved. Success after such an apparent failure is not only stronger in its impact; for the performer who enjoys living by his wits, it is far sweeter. T[lg00U0rilll00hsgru As I have already said, this is much the same trick. I use the same type of misdirection. The presentation is not, however, oriented around the failure/success model; rather, the routine begins playfully and, at the end, gets rather serious and, hopefully, mysterious. The monologue which f use here, to allow me the time for my control and palm, is this: "I can do this in two ways-the hard way and the easy way. In the hard way, you don't tell me anything at all-that's why it's hard. In the easy u)ay, you tell rne the color of your card-which isn't much, but it does giue me a start. Shall we do it the hard wo.y or the easy way?" If the spectator chooses the hard way, I comment to the others: "There's always that three percent!" If the spectator selects the "easy" way, I ask her to tell me the card's color. In either case, long before this interaction with the spectator is completed, I have not only controlled the card to the top, but it now resides in my right palm. I then place the deck in front of the spectator and ask that it be cut into four sections and that they be put back together "in a dffirent orden" Again, I am interested in what the spectator is doing. I watch the spectator as he starts to reassemble the four sections, and comment to the others:"This is the motor skill part for John."This interaction is the cover for 9 As the first finger continues bending the single match downward, the second finger simultaneously pulls the book closed. Another description of this trick appears in The Experience of Magic (Burger, 1989).
110 Eucnxp BUnGER tearing off the card's corner. If I am sitting, my hands drop to my lap and the corner is ripped off (fig.l). The card goes back into the palm , face outward, and the corner is retained in a finger palm at the base of the fingers in the left hand. If I am standirg, I first put my hands on my hips and, then, as the spectator begins cutting the cards, I lean forward and my hands retire behind my back and the corner is torn. It takes but a fraction of a second to accomplish this, but don't feel that you need to hurry. Hurrying, in fact, is just what you don't want to do. Putting your hands behind your back, as you wait for the spectator to complete the assigned tasks, is a perfectly natural thing to do. There is no need to feel guilty about this posture-and, thereby, "telegraph" that guilt. When the spectator reassembles the deck, I pick it up with my right hand, adding the palmed card to the top. I immediately turn the deck over so that it rests, face up, in my left hand-the torn corner lying hidden beneath it (frg.2). My right hand reaches over and cuts offabout half of the cards. TWo cards are now visible to the spectators-one in each hand. I say,"I will cut the cards once, from the Six of Hearts (the card visible in my right hand) to the Eight of Clubs (the card showing on the face of the packet in my left hand). Neither of these cards is yours because your narne isn't on thenx." I place the right-hand cards below the left-hand cards, but aboue the corner which still rests on my palm at the base of my fingers. The selected card is now in the center of the deck. I place the deck, face up, on the mouth of a glass-the corner being caught between the rim of the glass and the deck and still hidden from view (fig.5). This is a critical action. You must practice it, at first, having only the deck in your Ieft hand (no corner). Just take the deck with your right hand and place it on the glass. Do this over and over and ouer until you understand what it is to perform this action. When the corner is present, the action must look the sanxe as when the deck alone is moved. There must be no fumbling-and no suspicion that
ON Mam ScHUt IEN's Fanur,ous Cano Dtsco\TERIES 111 something is under the deck. I am saying, "The cards go on top of the glass where I can't euen touch them." I ask the spectator to name the card. I say, "This is the freakiest thing you,'re going to see all week!" I pause and smile . *Well it's only Wednesday, and I shouldn't judge your week!" I ask the spectator to name the card again-and I suddenly become rather serious. I slowly rise my right hand, palm toward the spectators, and say, seriously and with great conviction, "You. are not going to believe this!" I very slowly lower my right palm onto the top of the cards. I freeze.I take several deep breaths, close my eyes, tip my head backwardthis is the Woo Woo-as if something really weird or cosmic were about to happen. At this point, of course, the poor spectators have no idea at all what I am doing-but they are always wide-eyed and attentive. I suddenly say, "Now!" At this moment, I simply lift the side of the deck nearest the concealed cornerand the comer drops into the glass (frg.6 is an exposed view; frg.7 is an audience view). For a period of time, I wore an Abbott "Flasher" device under my beard. I would ask everyone to stare at the cards and the glass before I lowered my palm onto the cards. I caused the device to flash with my left hand just as the corner fell into the glass. Very effective. I carefully remove the deck from the glass and place it on the table. I push the glass toward the spectator and let him remove the corner. Alternatively, if there is no ice and water in the glass, I might pick it up and slowly and dramatically pour the corner out-so it lands in front of the spectator. Immediately, I say, "Wait!'I pick up the deck and spread it face up, find the selected card, remove it, and say, *Why here's the Queen of Hearts (or whatever) and your nome is still on it!" I toss the card to the spectator. T[u 0ail hilsr [[tu mguhlltN When I frrst read about this effect in the Schulien book, I saw immediately that it was a true masterpiecHne of the strongest card discoveries imaginable. It is a wonderful closing to a close-up show. Once you perform it, you can put the cards away and, stop. How could you follow it? Even though I realized the effect was extraordinarily strong when I first read it, it took L9 years before I ever began to work with it-in the Spring of 1978-during my first restaurant work. While practicing, I soon discovered that it really isn't diffrcult at all to spin the card under the tablecloth. First, the tablecloth is bunched up in
].j-2 EuonNr Buncnn your lap. The left hand picks up the tablecloth and pulls back on it, at the same time lifting it slightly up from the top of the table. The right hand, holding the card below the edge of the table, simply spins it under. The Schulien procedure was a bit different-the card is shot beneath the tablecloth under the pretext of straightening the tablecloth-which his forearm had "accidentally" bunched up. I could write about how to do this for pages-but that would probably leave you thinking that it is very difficult to do, or that you must do it in some special way. The real secret of this effect is that the spinning of the card under the tablecloth is rather simple to do. This effect, I might add, came up during a discussion after a lecture I gave in Atlanta in November of 1982. I demonstrated it to the magicians who remained, and one of them commented: "I can't believe that you're actually telling us how to do this!" Another magician, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the month before, said something similar, "If I could do that trick, l'd neuer tell anyone how it was done!" Frankly,I think I can afford to be generous because only the very few will take the time to practice it-and an even fewer number will have the nerue to do it before real people. Oh yes! It does take nerve. Perhaps,I should have mentioned that earlier! I discovered this for myself every time I was working and th,e thought crossed my mind "Why not perform the Card Under the Tablecloth?" "No,'I would inwardly reply, "Not now!" I soon understood that I was completely avoiding the trick and that, in fact, I had still never even tried it in public! It was then that I realized in a most concrete way that the effect needs some very strong misdirection, indeed-just at the moment when the card is shot under the tablecloth. What was I to do? I will tell you my first solution, only because it will demonstrate very clearly how offthe wall one can get to ensure that the spectators are not looking at you when you shoot the card. (Take a deep breath!) Handing the deck to the spectator, the card palmed in my right hand, I said, "Here, tahe the deck and just hold it up aboue our head. Hold your hand as high as you can. Look at the bottom card. Is that your card?" The spectator-and everyone else-looked up at the cards and I shot the selected card under the tablecloth. I then finished the effect much as Matt did, and which I will presently explain. Now, as a tactic or strategy to get the spectators to look autay from you, this one is hardly elegant-charitably, it is rather stupid. Not the least of its sins is that it fails to establish any coherent link between itself (the action of holding the deck up in the air) and the next action (putting the deck back on the table). The great virtue of this one-time, awful excursion into nonsense is that it allowed me to see (1) how easy it was to shoot the card in front of living, breathing people and how quick-
ON Mam ScHUt IEN's Fasul,ous Cano DtscoveRlEs 113 ly it can be dore, and (D it gave me confidence that I could now do it! What I needed was a ruse that was, shall we say, a bit more subtle. In rny own view, my present solution is a gem: It is a single sentence that will guarantee that eueryone will look at the spectator with the cards-and not at you. I place the deck in front of the spectator (the selected card is palmed in my right hand), look him in the eye, and say, "Shuffle the cardsl'While sayrng this, I drop the chosen card in my lap. As the spectator begins shuffling, I turn away and ask a question of another spectator: "George, did you see the card?" My left hand drops down and takes hold of the tablecloth. My right hand follows it and picks up the selected card in my lap. Just as my left hand begins pulling back on the tablecloth (fiS.l) and gently lifting it slightly (fi9.2), preparing for the card's entrance, I suddenly look at the spectator who is shuffling the cards and I say to him, nI hope you don't feel self-conscious that eueryone is evaluating your shuffiing ability!" Everyone, of course, looks to see the spectator's "shuffling ability." How could they not look? It's too tempting a trap, isn't it? I look too-but I also shoot the card (fi9s.3 and 4, the latter is an x-ray view). It is frnished except, of course, for the effectl From the spectators' perception, you see, the effect has hardly begun: A card was select€d, signed, shown around, returned to the deck, and the spectator has shuflled the cards. That's all that has happened-as the spectators see these things. I take the deck and, showing the bottom card to everyone, I ask if this is the chosen card. I place the deck on the table-directly over the card under the tablecloth. Picking up a spoon, I announce: "I am going to hit the deck with this spoon and your card will descend from whereuer it is in the deck to the bottom, euen though these spoons here are rather strange." Here, I do a one-handed spoon-bending move. I pause-and then drop the spoon on the table in front of me with the remark (which is directed to one particular spectator),"1 just wanted to see if you were watching." I pick up the spoon again, then stop again, and say: "Oh, you might think that your card is already on the bottom and that I'm just playing with yo,r." I pick up the deck again and show the bottom card to everyone present. If the tablecloth is thin and the card can easily be seen through it, my left hand moves over the spot where the card is and my right hand, with the deck, moves up higher to about shoulder height, so that everyone must look straight toward the card, rather than down toward it. Maintaining eye contact, I replace the deck. By the time the spectators look down, the deck is already in place over the card. I now look at the deck and, taking the spoon by its handle,I tap the spoon on the deck. I pick the deck up with my right hand, my left hand moving over to cover the card if necessary and-holding the cards up about
LL4 EucnNn BuncER shoulder level-I show the bottom card to everyone and announce: "There it is on the bottom of the deck!" One or more spectators will reply that I am wrong. I appear a bit surprised-and then say "I know what happened! I hit it too hard!" Then, as in Matt's presentation, I dip the spoon in water and pour a small amount of the water onto the tablecloth, over the card. This renders the tablecloth transparent and the signed card becomes visible (fig.5). I say, "Look, it utent right through the tablecloth!" This will register and mouths will now drop open. I add, "Here, reach uruder the tablecloth artd get the card and see that your name is still on it!' No encore, please. fitl hllaligtl N It was Charles Caleb Colton (who was born in 1780 and who died in 1832) who first seems "officially to have said: "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." I have nothing to say about Mr. Colton, but about the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people who have repeated his statement approvingly. I would say this: Most likely they have themselves been copyists and imitators. Is it surprising that the criminal doesn't always frnd his crime offensive? Let me suggest two axioms upon which we might hang our understanding of the problem of imitation. This "problern" of imitation? Don'tyou think imitation is a problem? On several levels? There is, first, the problem of imitating the book or imitating the teacher. We do this all the time. We attempt to imitate what this person or that person, what this book or that book, says we should do. We make the person or the book our authority. We try to copy what the book says, and, in aII that there is little artistic creation-for doesn't creation involve frnding out for myself, discovering this thing for myself,working with it, playing with different approaches, reflrning what I am doing? Do you think creation is copying what the book says? If the sleight-of-hand, artist is attempting to copy anything, it is reality itself; seeking to imitate the action itself. I pick up a coin from the table with my right hand and place it in my left so that my right hand is free to pick up something else. When I look at this action with attentiveness, with care, I see what it is to pick up the coin and transfer it so that I might do something else with my right hand. What I am trying to imitate, in conjuring, is how I, myself, pick up the coin. I am not tryrng to copy how Slydini picks up a coin, or how AI
ON Mem ScHur,rEN's Fasulous Cano DtscovERIES 115 Schneider does it, or how David Roth does it-no, I am attempting to copy how.I, myself, do it. Andyou must look at how you, yourself, do it. That is what you must imitate: yorfi otDn action. That is where you begin. I want this other action, this action in which I do not place the coin in my left hand but secretly retain it in my right, to be perceptually indistinguishable from the action in which I actually place the coin in my left hand. Too often, however, we attempt to imitate not the action itself but, as I have said, we attempt to copy what the book describes or the action of how someone else does it. But the teacher may be wrong, his hands might be much larger than yours, or smaller. The book might be wrong, not for its author, but for youl There might, in fact, be a far better way for you; an entirely new and more deceptive approach. You can only frnd it by yourself-in the solitude of your own practice and rehearsal. It is, of course, interesting for us, as magicians, to watch and enjoy other magicians, to see and learn how others do these things. Who isn't interested in collecting such information and experiences? But, after their show is over, you are not them. You must find your own way. Second, there is the problem of imitating and copying another performer's presentations, not to mention the approving jokes one hears about such copying among groups of magicians. When you look at the amount of presentational copying there is on the contemporary magic scene, don't you think it's a little outrageous? This is not a problem that is peculiar to magicians. Don't humans generally seem to think it is easier to imitate rather than to strike out on their own? In imitation there is the promise of security, while in working to find out what is best for you, as in all self-discovery and there is always the risk of failure and the pain which failure brings. For centuries and centuries, consequently, humans have generally opted for copying those they admire. (In this rather sad sense, Colton's famous quotation has a ring of truth to it.) We opt for copying, I must add, even though this usually entails stealing the fruits of the admired person's labor. Here, then, are my two axioms: I. Presentation is that point where you put yourself into your magic. Il.Imitation is the attempt to put sorneone else irrto your magic. Stated in this way, you can see that imitation must ultimately be a form of chasing the (ever-elusive) brass ring and going round and round in the process, not unlike a laboratory rat in a cage. The truth is that, while yov can p:ut yourself into your magic, in the final analysis, it is futile and impossible to try to put someone else into it. Deep down, it just can't be done. It is an utterly unattainable goal-like the television housewife's unattainable goal of completely and forever-andever eliminating all dust and germs from her kitchen. My point is simply this: Once you stop putting your energy into seeking the impossible, you suddenly have a great deal of energy to put into projects which yov can accomplish-such as making your magic as uniquely you as you are! I am saying, then, that the question of imitation isn't simply an ethical issue. It is that, of course It's bad enough not to have any morals, but not
116 EucnNn BuncER to have any ethics rather reduces humankind to the level of the rutabaga, doesn't it. Imitation is an ethical question because it usually involves stealing the fruits of another's labor. More interesting to me, however, is that imitation is olso a theatrical question-a question of impact and the magician's character or persona, and this point, I am afraid, is very rarely understood by those performers who are so quick to imitate another performer's presentations. Imitation is a theatricol issue: Do you see that you will always appear to your audiences as a little awkward and you will feel a little awkward yourself so long as you are tryrng to imitate someone else? Matt Schulien was his own character. He was himself. That was part of his power. Why attempt to imitate someone, like Matt-whom everyone saw as a one-of-a-kind? (Wouldn't that be trnng to climb the greased pole?) When all is said and done, you can only be yourself. You have no other choice. Why not put some real energy into this process? I have worked to make these cards discoveries my own. In the descriptions, I've attempted to explain what this has involved. But the goal for you is surely not to mindlessly imitate what I do, but to make these fabulous efforts your own as well. The goal for each of us must always be to perform our magic in our own way. If we fail, we will end up with a world of interchangeable magicianssomething which is already beginning to flower at many theme parks where teenagers, disguised as giant plastic bunnies and carrots with prerecorded voices, perform in major illusion shows. Common sense will tell you, however, that being an interchangeable magician is just what yo:u don't want to be-not simply from the artistic point of view, but from the pocketbook/practical point of view as well. Don't you want people to want you and not simply "a magician"? Don't you want people to hire yoz? Prospective clients are often funny; budgets for interchangeable magicians tend to be on the low side whereas, if someone wants you, really wants you,th.e rewards will be far greater. So, the next time you feel tempted to take the easy way and copy what this person or that person, what this book or that book, says s/op! Why try to put someone else into your performance? Presentation, remember, is that point where you put yourself into your magic. But, then, isn't that the fun-and wonder-of performing?
I don't have too much more to say about the Schulien card tricks. The fact is that I am especially fond of this little booklet about them. In large measure, it was my way of repaylng what I felt was a tremendous debt that I owed to a man I had never met. Reading Phil Willmarth's book, The Magic of Matt Schulien, was truly a life-changing experience for me. There is no other way to put it. I learned so much from this book and, as I have said, especially from the photographs. The photographs expressed so beautifully the joy and merriment and delight that a performance by Matt Schulien produced. These three effects still remain in my professional repertoire although I rarely perform the "Card in the Matchbook" anymore simply because matchbooks and ashtrays are fast disappearing from the public places, such as hotel suites and ballrooms, where I typically perform. If this booklet has any enduring message, it is its emphasis that the goal of our magical presentations is to make these tricks our own. In this booklet,I wanted to explain to myself and to the reader exactly how I had worked to impress each of these three quite wonderful card tricks with my own stamp, the stamp of my personality. I didn't always look at magic-or my involvement with my own magicin this way. Quite honestly, when I was 16 years old, I could literally "channel" Don Alan in performance-and I did, for family and friends. For all practical purposes,I became Don AIan when I performed, just as imitators today might imitate Jeff McBride, Lance Burton, or David Copperfreld. (Max Maven once pointed out to me that you can always tell if a performer has spent hours watching videos of Lance Burton by the way they move their shoulders. When I watched some Lance clone acts at magic conventions, I saw immediately what Max had meant.) Well, when I was 16 I could do the same thing with Don Alan. As I have said, I studied Don's performances for several years. For a young magrcian, Don's magical performances were eye-opening and utterly inspiring. He taught me things that I could never have learned from books. And so, sitting around some relative's dining room table on a sunny Sunday afternoon, young Eugene is performing the Bowl Routine or the Lump of Coal and doing it os Don Alan. I could do what I now think was probably a very good imitation of Don's words, cadences, effects and many of those little touches that made him Don Alan. On the one hand, it was a teenager's homage to a hero, to one who was a true inspiration; on the other hand, it was pretty pathetic. At 16, having very little sense of who Eugene was, I opted to try to be someone else. By the time I was 18 and off to college, my own growing curiosity about me became stronger than my interest in imitating others. I think this is probably the reason I drifted away from magic for L5 years. My routines were Don's routines and I slowly developed a feeling of alienation toward
118 EucnNB BuncER them. By the time of my second year in college,I wasn't performing magic at all, except once a year at my fraternity's rush party. My interest turned to other things. And when I left college to attend Luther Theological Seminar, which I now think of as my year in the convent, magic was very far from my mind. When my interest in magic was reawakened, about 15 years later, I had no interest at all in imitating Don Alan or anyone else. I saw all that as the folly of being a teenager. (In defense of teenagers,let me add that follies do not disappear with age; each life cycle has its own follies and illusions!) Coming back to magic, I now surveyed the magic scene and I tended to look at it much as the little boy viewed the emperor in Hans Christian Anderson's story, "The Emperor's New Clothes." I saw that so much of my earlier involvement with magic was little more than learning the scales. Now it was time to learn some melodies; it was time for Eugene to learn to do magic as Eugene! And suddenly I was hooked on magic again, with all the enthusiasm that I had as a teenager, but with an adult's checkbook and the perception that I needed to express myself in my magic. With the three Schulien card effects in this booklet, I think that I was most successful with my presentation of the "Corner in the Glass."The key moment is when my hand freezes in the air above the glass-and I wait. Here, I was aiming for an unexpected and sudden alteration of my attitude toward what was happening-and this, of course, alters t};Le mood of the moment for the audience. The effect begins in a playful manner and then, once I ask that the card be named, my attitude and the mood suddenly change. They become dramatically intense as my hand freezes in space and my gaze fixes upon the cards resting on top of the glass.
t$03
Frrouoril Magic is a performing art. Who among us will disagree with that? Yet, how many of the hundreds of books about magic talk about how to perform magqc? There are many which explain how tricks are done; many are full of tricks and methods, but it is the rare book, indeed, which explains the hard-won secrets of effective presentation. This, friends, is a book about presentation. More important, it is a book about presentation by a practitioner whose total livelihood is dependent upon the willingness of people to pay to see him perform these presentations. And, even more important than that, it is a book about how (or why) effective close-up presentations work. Do not purchase this book expecting to learn new tricks, for while some 10 tricks are described, many of these tricks will already be known to the average magical enthusiast. That is, he or she will know how the trick is done-in the sense that the average youngster knows how an egg is scrambled. Whether that typical youngster could take an egg and produce a delectable omelet is not only highly unlikely, it is also highly illustrative of the huge gap between knowing how a trick is done and being able to perform it in a gnpping, entertaining manner. Eugene Burger is not only an extremely successful close-up entertainer, he is also a deeply sensitive and introspective human being who knows precisely why his presentations work. He has tested his theories and polished his executions in hundreds of performances and, best of all for us, is able to articulate every nuance painstakingly built into them! I can not imagine any close-up worker who will not benefit from sharing Eugene's thinking as revealed in this book. Indeed, I am inclined to think that the more practical performing experience the reader has, the r,rlore likely he or she will be to appreciate the insights into the real work-how to make close-up magic entertaining enough to make people stop whatever they are already doing to have fun and watch and enjoy the performance. I recommend this book to anyone who enjoys performing magic for people because, in my opinion, the thinking, the insights, apply to all performances of magic. I sincerely believe that if you study this book, and apply Eugene's thinking to your own magical performances, you can't help but become a better magician-I know I have!And, what may be even more important, perhaps we can mutually help raise magic from something for the children to its rightful place as a true performing art. Phil Willmarth
A magician is one who creates illusions which have impact upon spectators. This book is about how we attempt to achieve this impact. It is consciously written from the viewpoint of a close-up performer, or others who display their art in similar settings. It is, further, rather deliberately arranged for people--often like myself--who skip around and do not read books straight through from the frrst page to the last. Those who do read from cover to cover, hopefully, will enjoy it as well. Frankly, I would not have written this book had it not been for the positive reception given to my frrst published book, Secrets and Mysteries. Before that book's publication, there were some who had seen the manuscript felt that it would not be widely read or appreciatively received by today's magical audience. The reason given was that it seemed "too theoretical" and not "practical" in the sense that its central emphasis certainly was not upon presenting new tricks and sleights to the magic fraternity. From my own point of view, of course, Secrets and Mysteries is indeed practical in a most real sense, for I have long believed that right action is preceded by right thinking (as the Buddha taught) and that if our thinking is confused, if we really do not understand what we are doing, then our "doing" itself is most likely to suffer from confusion as well. Originally, I had intended to title this present book "Lessons in Presentatiel"-41d, at one time, I imagined that it would be based in large part upon taped transcriptions of sessions with some of my students-especially those who are new or relatively new to the practice of the magician's crafb and, therefore, who are not yet burdened with bad performing habits. I imagined, further, that I would preface the book with the following personal adaptation of an old Sufr teaching story: The first man lamented: "f have long sought a perfect teacher but no teacher I have ever met, no teacher who has ever instructed me, has been perfect. Where might I frnd a perfect teacher?" The second man replied: "My dear friend, you don't understand, do you? A perfect teacher wants only perfect students. Why should such a teacher be interested in ... you?" The point is that I do not consider myself to be perfect teacher (and have, therefore, accepted imperfect students over the past several years). Nor do I see myself as yet another authority on the subject of close-up magic and its presentation. Nor, finally, do I see myself as giving advice to the reader on how to do "it." (Kindly stop and read that last sentence again!) My writing is highly personal and sometimes even autobiographical. In fact, I am doing no more than telling you how I approach my own work: explaining to myself and to you what works for me in this magical game of wits in which we are involved. Please, please, do not just mindlessly
122 EucBNn BuncER accept what I say as if it will automatically and totally apply to you and to your magical work. In the very deepest sense, a student must learn to be his or her own teacher: You must discover what does and what doesn't work for you. You must discover for yourself what you can perform and play to great impact and what you can perform and play merely to yawns and wandering, inattentive eyes. Granted, it isn't easy to do; but neither is it hopelessly impossible. It requires-doesn't it?-an alertness of mind which constantly asks whether our work is producing the impact we wish it to achieve and how we might deepen this impact. During a phone conversation with Max Maven, I said, "Max, I've got a great title for a new book:'Lessons in Presentation.'Pretty good, huh?" "It's awful!" Max replied "Do you think anyone will buy a book with that title?" "Max," I said, "you're twisting the knife!" "No," he continued, "it's too pedestrian. You can think of a better title." As things worked out, Phil Willmarth (who frequently acts rather as my "spirit guide" in this and other matters) suggested that we call the book, Psychological Presentations for the Close-Up Entertainen Phil argued that this really sums up my own approach to presentation, which places its emphasis not simply upon what your fingers are doing but also, and especially, upon your words, your attitude, the ways in which your routines are constructed, and the ways in which you work with people; that is, when all is said and done, upon your wits. In using this word "psychological," I am not referring exclusively to what is generally called mental magic or mentalism" (Sounds almost like a primitive brain disease, doesn't it? One of the conceptual problems with using "mentalism" as a label is that it's difficult for people to state<r even imagine-what its opposite might be. Physicalism? That sounds rather like a moral disorder.) Some of the material I explore certainly does fall within these categories, but the majority does not. As I see it, it isn't that some routines are psychological and some aren't; rather, all mag1cal presentations have psychological elements-some developed well and some poorly. (By "developed well" and "poorly," I mean some produce great impact upon spectators and some do not produce much impact at all.) Days later, when I told Max about the new title, he said, "No, that's your szb-title. The title needs to be something else." Since we had spent the previous 15 minutes going over the chapters and what I intended to include in them, I thought I'd choose the easy way out: "Well, Max," I said, "you tell me. What shall I call it?" "It isn't that easy!" he said.'Here, we'll do some word associations." And we did. For the next 15 minutes he threw out words and I gave the first word that popped into my head. I won't go into great detail here since I have no wish to cause some readers to blush, but not only was I treated
Ixuuetn PowBn L23 to a most revealing bit of analysis, we ended up with three words that sum up the way I approach close-up magic: contact, intimacy, and power. Obviously, a performer must make contact with his audience and, in closeup conjuring, this audience contact hopefully will be intimate and involving-both mentally and, I would say, physically. The magician, however, also must maintain a certain distance; he stands apart from the audience because he, after all, knows the secrets which mere mortals do not. Thus arises the fact of power-not the kinky power Svengali exercised over the hypnotized Trilby, but the confidence and power which come when we know we can produce magical effects that have real, and sometimes devastating, impact upon spectators. I have often told students that I believe all mag1c (not simply bizane magickal rituals wherein the chicken's head is cut ofr, but also coin and card tricks) past, present and future, centers upon this idea of power-the power of the magician to produce his wonders, and the impact those wonders produce upon audiences. And so the title, Intimate Power,came into being.It intuitively and immediately struck me as being exactly what I wanted. This book is not a treatise on new tricks, sleights and moves. Some of the material I discuss, in fact, desenres the status of minor classics (e.g., the" Vanishing Glass under the Newspaper" or the'Ashes on the Palm") and at least one, Paul Curry's" Out of this World," I personally consider to be a major classic. But why talk about tricks most magicians already know? The answer, simply put, is to stimulate you to think: initially, to get you to think about the tricks I discuss; generally and certainly more important, to stimulate you to think about your own favorite effects and how you might make them even stronger. It is, you see, a game of wits. One of the first things a teacher learns is that if he wants his students to understand what is being taught, he had better learn to re-state it in various novel ways. If repeated enough, we sometimes get the message. I have said the following before and this is as good a place as any to say it again: If you have already been into magic for a year or more, you already know too many tricks. And this knowledge----coupled with the endless desire for still more, more, more-is surely one of the great enemies of good magical presentation. If you want people to start talking abott you as a magical performer, start putting more of your energy and time into developing, practicing, and rehearsing some of the tricks you already know and less of your time and energ'y into looking for new tricks. If I could somehow help you understand this, if you could understand it deeply,I would have provided you with an important and probably priceless magical secret (a point of view and an attitude toward your magic) that would make a real difference to you as a performer. For a start, don't just read the words and agree or disagree. See itl You know too many tricks and the challenge before you (and me) is to learn to present sonze of these tricks entertainingly. This isn't to say, of course, that all magical invention should stop. Hardly!
L24 EucgNN BUnGER It is to say, however, that performers need to put things into perspective and arrange their priorities. Too much time spent looking for the new and too little time spent developing and practicing the old, what we already know, makes for bad magical performances-performances that don't produce much impact. It's that simple. * I began this chapter by sayrng that a magician is one who creates illusions which have impact upon spectators. To achieve this impact, magicians are concerned with secrets-though I confess here and now that the magical'secrets" which most interest me and upon which I frnd it most profrtable to reflect, generally are not those which pertain to the workings of specific tricks. In the big picture of audience impact and its creation, I am convinced that trick-methodology has but a limited relation to a specific effect's impact upon the spectators who witness it. I'm not saying the relation isn't important.It is! We are, after all, creating illusions and poorly executed Double Lifts (charitably ptt) demolish any illusion we might wish to create. In the same way, clumsy Elmsley Counts are not only painful to watch (especially for other magicians), they are also theatrically boring-and wondrously anti-magical. For the spectators, the impact is deadened ("Thud!") when the method is obvious or when the performer's actions are suspicious. Nonetheless, technical expertise alone, except in the rarest of cases, simply is not very entertaining. * Since magicians deal with secrets, it is only fair that I conclude this chapter by telling you one-though this secret is more literary than magical. I have often been told and have read in several places, that readers of books (whether magical or otherwise) generally do not read that part of a book labeled "Introduction." Readers, I guess, are just funny that way. I myself often do, but sometimes don't. As a writer, however, I certainly would rather that my readers did read my own Introduction-which is why I wrote it in the first place. The secret I wanted to tell you is this: Hoping that you would read the Introduction to this book, I decided to call it "Chapter One." But then, what's in a name?
Every exploration begins somewhere. If I want to visit Los Angeles, for example, I must begin from somewhere else, from someplace concreteChicago or New York or Piggly Falls. In much the same way, every exploration of an area of thought and action, such as conjuring, begins with the assumptions and preconceptions of the explorer. Every thinker has his assumptions-those accumulated beliefs which seem so perfectly obvious to him that he wonders why everyone else doesn't share them as well. I tell you this because I want to explain one of my most fundamental magical assumptions---€ven though it might strike some readers as being highly unorthodox if not downright heretical. The assumption is this: Magic tricks really are not very entertaining in and of themselves. In my own work I assume this to be true. I assume that strangers really are not very interested in watching card tricks, that they might even find the idea of watching a card trick an unwelcome intrusion into other, more personally interesting things currently happening in their own time and space. In other words, while the fact that the Seven of Clubs and the Four of Diamonds have changed places on the table may make most magicians sit up and take notice, for the average layman ... well ... it's most likely to be seen as a bit trivial. I think this is a good assumption for magicians to make because it explains why the performance of card tricks can so easily generate the response of resistance and sometimes even hostility from spectators. The fact is that people often frnd it irritating, and not entertaining, to be confronted with other people who know things that they do not know. In the same way, while in aformal setting such as a concert or a Las Vegas show, people may enjoy seeing other people in the spotlight, in an informal setting these very same people often do not enjoy other people being in the spotlight because the truth is that they, themselves, would rather be the center of everyone's attention. Excuse the pun: Doing card tricks, especially for a living, is a tricky business. In my own work, I repeat, I assume that people do not frnd magic entertaining. And I therefore assume, further, that it is my job to figure out how to get people interested in watching the card tricks that I do to pay my rent. Creating interest-this is the challenge and opportunity of close-up performing. If I want to make an impact upon a group of people, the frrst thing I must do is get them genuinely interested in what I am doing. This is critically important. If I fail to create this interest, the impact that I will be able to make will, of necessity, be minimal. The first step is to be interested myself. Sometimes modestly; sometimes passionately. If I want spectators to become interested in my magic, they must perceive me as being interested in it myself. If I want them to think it is important, I must think it is important.
L26 EucnNB BuncER IF TWo people are talking in a restaurant lounge. I am the magician. I watch them. They are talking with each other, yes, but they are also looking about the room, watching other people as they enter and leave. I watch their eyes. They are not talking about lost or found love. They are not talking about business. If I am observant, I can see this simply by watching them. Their interest in the room, in "what's happening here," is obvious to me if I am watching. I must make my approach. I prefer my arrival to coincide with a time when they are not talking to each other, when they are quietly looking about the room. I approach. I stand in front of them. They look at me. I smile and look at each of them in the eyes, pause, and say, ol'm the magician here. Would you like to see the greatest card trick of the 20th century?' My smile broadens. They smile too. Their smile says, "yes," but I want them to say thLe word.I want them to begin to participate in what I will create. I do not want them to be passive spectators (how absolutely dull!). I want them tobe participants. Do you see the difference? I want them to become interested. Yet it is I who must stimulate their interest. I must win their interest. There are so many other things in this room at the moment that are also reaching out for their attention-the lights, the decor, other people ("cruising," as it is called), the music, the need to go to the bathroom, the desire to buy a package of cigarettes, the list of things that might be competing for their attention is endless. I am the magician and I want their attention and so I must create interest in what I am doing. I must win their interest and their attention from other things also reaching out to them. The smile is important. Above all, I do not want to appear as a threat or as some "crazy"-remember we are in a restaurant lounge. This isn't a costume party or a s6ance, two other performing settings with which I have had considerable experience, where one can execute one's "approach" in a way and manner that is more extreme, further out, and even bizarre. No. Now I am in a restaurant and I don't want people to scream in fear. Later, after the show has started, they may scream in delight, of course, because such laughter and screams of fun will make other patrons wonder what these people are doing which seems to be so enjoyable. I must win their interest. I do this through my manner. I do it through my dress. I am wearing a tuxedo. The attire of the patrons in this restaurant, on the other hand, might be very casual. The tuxedo helps. The tuxedo makes my approach so much easier. Obviously, I am "offrcially" the magician-and not some bozo off the street wandering around, coming on to the patrons. My tuxedo, my costume for my role as a magician, protects me from many unpleasant situations which could otherwise accidentally arise. From their perception: Here is this magician and he seems as though
INuuarn PowBn L27 he might be fun and he's going to show us the greatest card trick of the 20th century! Well, yes, this approach is based on delivering the goods. I mean you must now perform t}ne greatest card trick of the 20th century. But, you may exclaim, "f'm not sure I know the greatest card trick of the 20th century!" Relax. I think you do. Personally, at this point, I perform my own handling of "Card Warp." Not only is this a very strong card trick, my presentation is short and. direct. There isn't a lot of folding and proving and unfolding and proving some more-which, after a few drinks, is usually too confusing for the spectators on the one hand, and slows down the action on the other. Stop! Don't you see that "the greatest card trick of the 20th century" at this time and place is any card trick that you perform very well and that is direct and surprising? Let's exclude those tricks wherein the spectator is asked to count five heaps of five cards each six times, etc., etc., etc. You must do this trick well. You must sell it. What does that mean? It means, I submit, that you must know your material so well that your hands and mouth are, so to speak, on automatic pilot and your attention is consequently not on making sure the trick works (you know it will work!-or, at least, you know that you can get out of any disaster which the Fates might suddenly toss in your path). Your attention, rather, is on communicating with these people, your audience. It means looking at them, smiling, talking with them, listening to them when they talk. You can do this because you know this trick inside out; you have practiced it and rehearsed it and you know that your performance of it has impact. You. know it will produce a good response from your audience. At this moment, in this time and space "the greatest card trick of the 20th century" is the card trick you know the best, that you can perform very very well, and that is itself direct, deceptive, and surprising. It doesn't need to be any one trick. Hopefully, every magician will have his own "greatest card trick of the 20th century." If every magician didhave his own, wouldn't magic-land be a lot more exciting and fun for everyone? And so, I deliver on my promise. As far as these people are concerned, they will see something really baffling and, as far as they know, it might very well be "the greatest card trick of the 20th century." If I have caught their interest, if I have won their attention, if they have been really fooled, then they will want to see more. They are beginning to relax. This is fun, after all, and the truth is that many people in bars and lounges, even those present in groups, often feel alone. But now, suddenIy, they are no longer alone. For a moment, for this instant, "this marvelously oflicial magician in his tuxedo is performing his wonders for met" The psychology of the singles bar scene is quite fascinating. People stream into such bars looking, often hoping, to meet someone and to become the center of his or her attention. Yet, in such places, meeting people is often not an easy thing to do. As a magician, I attempt to bring groups of people together. No one told
L28 Eucnun BuncER me to do this: It isn't part of my job description. It is simply something I do. I introduce people to each other. I get their names and repeat them and use their names and, thereby,remember their names-and I see myself as the "unoffrcial host" in this room-whose job is not to see that the towels are changed in the men's room (I'[ let the "offrcial host," the room manager, do that!), but to bring groups of people together in this room that gets progressively more crowded with people as the evening wears on-until, when I finally leave, it is very often so packed with people everywhere that I am pleased to walk out into the fresh, late evening air. If I am performing at a cocktail party or a reception, I usually want to arrive before any of the guests. As the guests begin arriving, very often people do not know each other and, if I were not there, would stand apart in little groupings, isolated and watching. In such settings, too, I will bring these groups of people together. I will have everyone tell me their names and I will encourage everyone to interact with me and with each other. When I leave this group, they will be talking with each other. And that, my friends, is real magic! And I will go on to other groups at the party, working my wonders and bringing these new groups of people together as well. Being a magician involves much more than simply performing one's magic tricks weII. tF In his marvelous Preface to How to Perform Instant Magic (Domus Books, 1980), Jay Marshall sets down "the ABC secret formula for learning magic": A. Learn how B. Learn how C. Figure out how to present it. When I frrst read this Preface, I thought to myself: "Good for you, Jay; you've said it all in a nutshell!" Jay admits that the third step, figuring out how to present the magic we've frnally learned to do, is the tough one, and that the start of being great is being different, yet acceptable and amusing. Learning how to present magic before audiences, he says, is an individual thing and the real secret is to study and think for yourself. When I begin to work on a ne\M presentation, I usually spend the greatest amount of time on the presentation's opening line. I want the opening line to create interest in what is to follow. I want the opening line to hook them, so to speak, and therefore, I very often use the technique of the direct question-the question mark being the sign of the hook (as Fritz Per1s, the father of gestalt therapy, was so fond of pointing out). "Would you like to see the greatest card trick of the 20th century?" It's a direct question calling for a response. "Yes, I would." "No, I wouldn't." The number of people who have said "No" to that question, as I have asked it, is surprisingly small and I have asked the question of thousands ofpeople. the trick is done. to do it.
INun,tern PowER L29 Consider now, the phrase, "the greatest card trick of the 20th century." In communication theory, a"buzz-word" is a word that stimulates interest, that often arouses strong emotional responses in those who hear it and, thereby, gets peoplebuzzir;:g. The phrase, "the greatest card trick of the 20th century," functions as a buzz-word-or, more precisely, as a buzzphrase. It stimulates interest. After all, who wouldn't like to see "the greatest card trick ofthe 20th century?" In the first presentation I shall discuss, the words "card cheat" function as the btzz-phrase. Anyone who plays cards for fun or money is interested in card cheats and in what card cheats can, and can't do. If you are performing for persons who are card players, the very mention of "card cheat" will get them mentally buzzing-that is, it will create interest in what is to follow. In that presentation, further, the word "victims" appears in the opening sentence-another strong emotionally-charged word. Consider these opening lines: "Do you believe in spirits?" "Do you believe in ghosts?" Either of these questions, though particularly the second, will instantly create interest if it is asked in a way that suggests the performer is about to do something that will have a bearing on the issue. By putting it as a question, rather than saying, as the opening line of a presentation, "Many people believe in ghosts," I am asking the spectator for an answer, asking for the spectator to participate, to become involved. When I ask either of these questions,I ask it of someone in particular.I look at this person and I wait for his or her answer and respond to it. What follows the opening line, which may be a direct question and which, in my work, will most likely contain a word or phrase placed there to create interest, is the result of a great deal of work, of trial and error, of trying things and discarding them and trying something different. While ideas may come to us out of the blue and be instantly and intuitively perceived, working them out and constructing entertaining magical presentations invariably takes a lot of work, for the goal of performing is precision: matching our actions with our words. This calls for a performing script. The script itself is simply a sign that you have done your homework. The writing of the script isn't the goal, it is a stage along the way. Once the script is written, having it in your head is the goal. The writing is a tool. Once the script is set in preliminary form, the performer's actions need to be choreographed to it, all the time being ready and willing to make whatever changes seem necessary. What the performer is doing is choreographed to what he or she is saying. And this, needless to say, entails a great deal of work. It isn't easy but, as I have said, neither is it hopelessly impossible if you are willing to jump into the water and begin. Rather than continuing to discuss these things in the abstract, let me turn to the presentation of some specifrc magical effects. The effects I want to discuss in this chapter are all well-known. The frrst effect, in fact, happens to be the frrst magic trick I teach students who come to study with me. It is a great effect because it is very simple to do and so all of
1 The right hand grasps the inner end of the face-down deck, fingers above and thumb beneath. 2 As the hand snaps downward at the wrist, the deck will begin to slide out from between the top and bottom cards, held in place by the fingers and thumb. 130 Eucnxn BUnGER the student's attention can be concentrated on the presentation and on communicating with the audience. Once this is realized, an interesting change usually comes over the student: what had previously seemed so simple to do now becomes rather more difficult; for it is the student's presence, his attitude, his selling of the trick, his manner of presentation which, in truth, creates the effect; for the student, creating the effect is suddenly seen for what it is-a great challenge which requires thought and work. The methodology of the trick is utterly simple. To create the effect, therefore, the student must know the presentation so well that a certain perceivable confidence is generated-"address" as they called it in the 19th century. It is this confidence, this presence, which turns an unusually simple card trick into a wholly inexplicable demonstration of an imaginary card cheat's amazing powers. T[tu0ar[0ltual Let me begin by explaining the effect as it is perceived by the audience. Then, I will go back over it and examine certain details that I think make or break it, as we say. The performer begin s: "Card cheats find it useful to be able to control certairu cards in the deck in o way that is totally unsuspected by their uictims. Let me show you what I mean." The performer borrows (if possible) a pack of playrng cards and, before receiving it, asks that it be thoroughly shuffled. Taking the pack, he continues, *I'll looh through the deck and remoue two cards. These will be the cards the cheat wishes to control." TWo cards are placed together face down on the table. The remainder of the pack is also placed on the table. The cards are turned face up. The performer looks at the spectators. The cards are turned face down. "Tfuio card.s." The performer lifts up about two-thirds of the deck and places the frrst card, face down, on the tabled portion. "One card is placed, about a third of the way from the bottom," he explains. Half of the cards in the performer's hand are allowed to drop onto the tabled cards. "The second card is placed about a third of the way from the top." The second card is placed on the tabled cards and the remainder of the cards in the performer's hand are allowed to drop on the tabled cards. Everything is done slowly and deliberately, keeping eye contact with the spectators. Leaving the cards on the table, the performer slowly squares the deck so the spectators are absolutely convinced he is not manipulating it in any way. 'You will notice," the performer says, "that the cards really are lost in the deck." Turning to one of the spectators, he contint)es, "YnLI mary run your finger along any of the edges to see that no cards are protruding." T}re spectator is allowed to do this. i\ Kr\
INtruarp PowER 131 Amazing as it may sottnd,'the performer says, "a good card cheat can find those two cards instantly." Picking up the pack with his thumb on the bottom and first and second frnger on top, he suddenly snaps the deck-causing the cards to fly onto the table. Remaining in the performer's hand are the two cards which he spins, face up, onto the table. "There they are!" he announces triumphantly. That's the effect. The method could not be simpler. The performer removed the Six of Clubs and the Seven of Diamonds. On top and bottorn of the deck were the Seven of Clubs and the Six of Diamonds. When he threw the cards onto the table, he retained the top and bottom cards by applying a slight pressure during the toss. The effect can be done with any cards, though it is best done with inconspicuous cards such as Sixes, Sevens, Eights and Nines. Borrowing the pack and making a bit of a fuss over having it shuffled is one of those touches that really contributes to the impact. When the performer begins spreading through the pack to remove two cards, he looks for any suitable pair of cards together in the deck (inconspicuous cards of contrasting color). He downjogs the frrst of the cards and then continues looking through the pack for their "opposites." Once he finds these cards, he upjogs them (fi9.4) and then removes them from the deck, without showing their faces, and places them face down on the table. Without making a production out of it, he now simply cuts the pack at the downjogged card, bringing one of the pair to the top and the other to the bottom. The pack is placed face down on the table. Notice the economy of words in the presentation. Too much mindless talk, idle chatter, is the mark of too little thought and rehearsal. This routine has very few lines and the action is not hurried, it is deliberate. When the two cards are turned face up, they are not named. They are simply shown as he says the line, "TDo cards." Further, as the performer turns the cards face up, he looks up at the spectators-who, in turn, look at him rather than at the cards. He smiles and, without rushing anythirg, turns the cards face down and continues. The spectators have been shown the cards but they have not really been showrt them. The whole procedure is done in a relaxed way without hurry. It is the very openness of the handling and the economy of words, coupled with the performer's presence, which creates the effect. This effect really is excellent as a beginning project for a magic student because it ends up with a falsehood, a direct lie."There they are!"The student might as well learn at the beginning of his study that conjuring is acting, playing the part of the magician-in this case, saying something that is patently false with the confrdence and power-and the implicit authority-that we associate with speaking the truth. Learning to speak the lie without betraying that it is a lie, is a great and important lesson for all budding conjurors to learn. Ihe deck falls to the table and the right hand rapidly turns palm up, revealing the two cards.
132 EucpNe BuncER [nm0artiH0aru Let us consider now the well-known effect wherein a glass tumbler vanishes from under a sheet of newspaper which has been formed around it. This really is a marvelous magical effect, particularly if you are able to catch the spectators by complete surprise. If the spectator is led to believe that the action concerns something totally other than the glass, then, when the glass disappears, he or she is taken by surprise. Should you have a spectator assisting who reacts visibly and audibly to things, the effect is fun for everyone. In my presentation of this effect, I attempt once again to hook spectators' interest with the very first line: "This is an old carniual garle that has been used for years to swindle nlany people." In this case, "old carnival game" and "swindle" are the buzz-words, the words which will hopefully begin to create interest in what's going on. "Old carnival game" is a colorful phrase which stimulates memories of childhood visits to carnivals with their own wonderful excitement. People, generally, seem interested in swindles-as any magician who has performed the "Three Card Monte" for entertainment will tell you. The effect is presented to the spectator as if it is a game of guessing heads or tails on a borrowed coin which is hidden from view-a game which, the performer claims, is impossible for the spectator to win. If the spectator believes this line of thought, later, when the glass disappears in a most physical way (the spectator's hand is pressed down on the paper form, crushing it flat), the spectator will be caught by complete surprise. Recently I have begun to frame this effect with some additional magic. I begin by borrowing a penny, the penny that is to be used in the game. I pick it up, Iook at it, and comment on its small size. Passing my right hand in front of it, it changes into a bronze penny one and a half inches in diameter which is handed to the spectator. (Spectators genuinely seem to enjoy handling such unusual coins.) The game is then played with the larger penny which other spectators can see more easily. At the end of the routine, after the glass has disappeared and the spectators have had a chance to react to that, I pick up the large penny with my right hand, place it in my left, and apparently squeeze it. When I open my hand, the penny is again normal size and it is returned to the person from whom I originally borrowed it, thereby framing the effect of the Vanishing Glass with this additional magic. "This is an old carniual game," the script begins, "that has been used for yedrs to swindle many people." I look at a lady spectator on my right. "What is your first name? Mary. Well, Mary, would you like to be swindled?" Mary most often replies negatively. I smile and say, "I can't blame you." Looking at the other spectators, I say, "To play this game I shall need a penny. Does anyone haue a penny that we might use?" I place the offered penny on the table in front of me, look at it for a second, and then pick it up between my left thumb and frrst finger. The left
INuuarn PowER 133 hand is held in a relaxed position just at the edge of the table (frg.l). The large penny is finger palmed in the right hand which rests on the table. Looking at the spectators, I say, "Pennies are a bit srnall and difficult to see, aren't they?" Whereupon I pass my right hand in front of my left (frg.2). The left hand drops the small penny which falls into the lup, the left thumb and first finger spreading slightly to accommodate the large penny in the right hand. Once the large penny is secured by the thumb and first finger, the right hand moves away. The large penny is shown and handed to the assisting spectator. I say,"Now you can see it more clearly." Receiving the coin back from the assisting spectator, I continte:'The coin, as you know, has heads on one side and tails on the other." I place the coin on the table and turn it over so both sides can be seen. "Mary, here's how the game works. The coin is placed flat on the table and couered with the card (a playrng card, business card, book of matches, or anything that will lie flat and cover the coin may be used). The card is couered with the glass." The glass is placed mouth down on top of the card. "The glass is couered u)ith this sheet of newspaper." Again, you may use napkins, paper towels, anything that will hold the form of the glass. Most magic texts which cover the "Glass Through the Table" describe rolling the glass in the paper covering, then crushing the top to aid in holding the shape. I prefer molding the paper over the inverted glass so there is a wide "lip" of paper extending out from the rim of the glass (frg.3). Use five or six paper napkins, opening them flat, then pressing them over the glass, or a full sheet of newspaper folded in fourths. Take your time shaping the paper and test it to see if it will stand and hold its shape reasonably well without being held. Continue as follows. "There is, therefore, no way that you can see the coin, Mary-unless you haue X-ray eyes-in which case I don't think that I want to play with you!" I laugh. They laugh too. Do you see how the audience is being led down the garden path, so to speak, to believe that the effect,the action which is taking place concerns the coin? I carefully lift up one edge of the paper-wrapped glass, remove the card, and turn the coin over several times. I snap the coin against the table on the last turn so the spectators hear it go flat against the table, note whether heads or tails is on top of the coin, and then replace the card. I look Mary in the eye, pause, and say "If you say 'heads,' tails will be on top of the coin ... and you will lose." I smile . olf you say 'tails,' heads will be on top of the coin .. . and you will lose. In other words, whateuer you say ... you will lose." I look at Mary, then at the other spectators, smile, and say, "Sounds like a lot of fun for Mary, doesn't it?" Notice, here, that although I have assumed in my speech and action that I cannot lose the game and that there is nothing Mary can do to win the game,I have done absolutely nothing to embatass Mary in any way,
L34 EucsNB BuncER or to cause her to feel uncomfortable. On the contrary, if Mary is "into" a challenge, she may now be most eager to play the game. "Well, Mory," I ask, "what do you say?" It doesn't matter what Mary says because I can play the game with any response given.If Mary is inconect in her guess, it only proves the game works and I say,"You know, we can do this a thousand times if you wish." On the other hand, if Mary is correct in her first guess, I smile and say, "Perhaps you would like to put up son'Le fiLoney, Mary?" If Mary is coruect in her second guess as well, I look a bit flustered and say,"This has neuer happened before. Are you sure that this is the first time you'ue played this game?" And, then I go directly into the ending. Mary makes her first guess. "I bet you,'re wondering how I do this. Look!" I look at the paper-wrapped glass and then, suddenly, tip the glass and quickly right it again-as if Ite done something. I look up at Mary and say, "That, Mory, is how it's done. You wouldn't eueru haue noticed that mouement if I hadn't pointed it out to yott." I lift the glass with my left hand and look at the card. The glass is brought to rest about half way between the card and the edge of the table, but to the left of the card. I say, ol'm not euen going to touch the coin," and with the frrst frnger of my right hand. I slide the card-covered coin directly in front of the spectator. I tell Mary, "Look at the coin. What is on top?" As Mary begins to move toward the card, I look intently at the card and move the glass the additional distance to the edge of the table. The glass is removed from the paper form with the right hand, the first and second fingers entering the glass and removing it from the form (fig.4), then depositing it between the legs. (As a teenager, I performed this steal of the glass by simply letting the glass drop into my lap ... until, of course, that day came when the glass bounced from my Iap and broke on the floor-an ending not expected by the audience, the hostess, or myself. Since then, I have always remoued the glass from the paper form). Mary lifts the card. At this same moment, I lean forward, as if to see the coin better (fig.5). Believe me, all eyes will be looking at the coin and the steal ofthe glass is not difficult. It requires practice, of cotrrse, so that you convince yourself you can do it and, thereby, not telegraph to the spectators that you're doing something with the glass. The steal must be done smoothly as the body begins to move forward. Once the glass is obtained, the Ieft hand moves the form away from the edge of the table toward the center. All this time, my gaze is fixed on the coin. Mary announces what is on top of the coin. She is either correct or incorrect. In either case, the game is repeated-except this time, when the glass is removed, the paper form is not moved to the edge of the table but, rather, just a short distance to the left. Further, I do not slide the card-
INrruerp Pownn 135 covered coin in front of Mary, I now remove the card myself. Again, Mary is either correct or incorrect. If incorrect, I again repeat that I can do this a thousand times. If Mary is correct, I begin looking flustered and say that this has never happened before, etc. Again, the game is repeated. After Mary guesses "heads" or "tails" this third time, I say to her, "Here, hold your right hand out like this." I demonstrate with my own right hand, holding it out in front of me, palm downward. When Mary has put her own hand out, I take hold of it with my right hand and move her hand directly over the paper form. If Mary has been incorrect in her second guess, I say simply, "I don't want to play anymore." If Mary has been correct in her second guess, I say, "Mary, you're too good. I don't want to play anymore!" Saying this, I put my right hand on top of Mary's and push her hand flat on the table-crushing the paper form in the process (fig.6). WelI over SOVo of the ladies I do this with scream at this point, thereby adding to the fun for everyone. I am aiming here, as I have said, to take the spectator by complete surprise. That is my goal. Once the reaction to the glass's disappearance has subsided-and don't be in a hurry here, part ofthe fun ofthis for spectators is buzzing about it to each other for a few seconds; let them have their fun-my left hand drops to my lap and picks up the small penny.I frnger palm it at the base of the second and third fingers. I pick up the large penny with my right hand, apparently place it in my left hand (actually retaining it in my right) and squeeze my left hand. I have been sitting back from the edge of the table, so my right hand moves toward the surface of the table, drops the large coin in my lap, and continues about 10 or 12 inches onto the table where it comes to rest. "If you squeeze it hard enough," I say, "it u)ill return to its normal size." I open my hand to show that it has apparently done just that. Should the glass be reproduced? Initially,I would say no, the glass should not be reproduced. That, after all, is what makes vanishes so mysterious-that the vanished object really has apparently vanished and doesn't show up again. The reaction is stronger if the glass doesn't make a reappearance. Sadly, it isn't always possible to keep the glass out of sight. This effect is a great favorite of mine to perform when I go to other people's houses. The props are easy to obtain in anyone's home: a glass, a card, a coin and newspaper or paper napkins. In this setting, it is sometimes not possible to get up from the table and keep the glass hidden. In these situations, I reproduce the glass as follows. After the reaction to the glass's disappearance has subsided, I lean back and drop my right hand into my lap and obtain the glass between my thumb, on the outside, and my frrst and second frngers, on the inside. My left hand reaches across the table for the paper and drags it toward me,
136 EucpNe BuncER toward the edge of the table. My right hand, with the glass, comes to meet my Ieft hand with the paper-the paper covering my right hand and the glass from the audience's view (fig.7). I lift the paper in the arr, up from the surflace of the table (fi9.8) and with my left fingers tear the paper and remove the glass from the center (fig.9). f place the glass down on the table \rith a bit offorce, ball the paper up, and deposit it in the glass. The important thing is to reproduce the glass on the offbeat and, therefore, you really must let the effect of the glass disappearance sink in. There must be no rush to reproduce the glass. And, I repeat, if I possibly can do it, I will not reproduce the glass at all. From the very begin.itg, this presentation is designed to involve the spectator in what is happening, to involve the spectator in an interaction with the performer. It is this interaction, I contend, which is the shoul. The "show" is not simply what the performer is doing. For the other spectators, the interaction between Mary and myself is the show. As I do it, the interaction is fairly playf,ul; it is fun, and it ends with a wonderful surprise. ffiiW
I Iooiloo flituat INrruarn Powpn L37 If you have never actually performed this effect, wherein a smear of ashes is suddenly discovered on the palm of a spectator's closed hand, you will surprise yourself when you see how strongly it plays and the impact it produces. This is one of those effects in which the trick is completed before the spectator(s) realizes the effect has begun. I want to talk about two things here: first, the secret application of the ashes unnoticed onto the spectator's palm and, second, the acting required to bring the effect to a successful completion. Notice, again, this presentation, like those I have already discussed, begins with the technique of the direct question centering around an interest-creating buzz-word: "Do you belieue inVoodoo?" The question couldn't be better. It is delivered a bit mysteriously--+ontained in my very delivery of the question is the assumption that this isn't going to stop here, with a question, but that we're going to pursue it. I pause a bit before I utter the word, nVoodoo." And, I pause again after I've said it, so they can begin to participate in this mentally, with their thoughts. I allow them the time to bring into focus any Voodoo images they might have in the backs of their minds. I want the question, further, to be perceived as a tiny bit menacing-and that is why I would not begin a routine with this effect but perform it only after I have introduced myself as a non-threatening, if a bit far-out, person. I want this slightly menacing element here. I want the spectator to be on guard and not quite sure what this is all about. It makes the transfer of the ashes so much easier to accomplish without detection. It doesn't matter how the spectator responds to the question. If the spectator says,'Yes," I smile and reply: "I loue to work with belieuers." If the spectator says, "No," I smile and reply: *I loue to work with skeptics." Either answer plays well. Long before I ask the question of a spectator, I have gotten a smear of ashes on my own second finger (of either hand). This is surprisingly easy to do. Simply move an ashtray and press your second finger into the ashes when you do it. If your hands are very, very dry, you might cough a bit, turning your head away and bringing your right hand, closed in a fist, up toward your mouth. Once the closed hand touches the upper lip, the tongue secretly darts out and moistens the second finger. If your tongue can't reach your second finger-we don't want you choking and gagglng here!-you have two options: (a) moisten your frrst finger and do the trick with that frnger, or (b) once your tongue has moistened your first finger, slide your thumb across your first finger onto-and moistening-your second finger. This technique of secretly moistening fingers while apparently coughing or clearing one's throat was, I once read, a favorite of Cardini. (For those whose sensitivities prohibit the use of even the tiny bit of saliva required here, the alternative moistening strategy is simply to move a glass containing ice cubes and liquid, picking up moisture from the sweaty sides of the glass. Drag any fingers which were moistened unnec-
138 EucrNo Buncrn essarily across the tablecloth or on your own trousers to dry them, keeping the second finger raised enough to remain moist. (Do keep your entire attention on the play with your spectators as you do this, however.) With the frnger slightly moistened, obtaining a smear of ashes is very easy to do and takes but a fraction of a second. The smear, further, will be dark and very visible on the spectator's hand-which allows all of the spectators present to participate in the climax. Now for the transfer of the smear from my finger to the spectator's palm The strategy which I personally use is based upon the following general rule which I have observed as a performer. The rule is this: When they are asked to follow the performer's instructions, spectators generally do not want to mess up. When following directions, spectators do not want to be perceived by the others present as appearing "out of it" or as "having trouble." Except for those dear souls who are pu{posefully out to mess up the magician" most spectators want to do things correctly, especially when they realize that doing things inconectly is most likely to produce laughter and ridicule from the others present. Understanding this fact about spectators allows the performer to use it to his own advantage. Hence, the following strategy: "Hold your hands out like this." I say this most often to a woman-a woman I have previously perceived to be visible and open in her reactions and responses to things, someone who "lets it out" rather than one who "holds it in." There is a ring of a command in my voice when I speak the line. I am putting the woman on notice that I want her to comply and follow my instructions to the letter. I demonstrate exactly what I want her to do, further, by holding out my own hands, palms down. The spectator complies and holds out her hands. Looking her directly in the €y€, I say with a slight touch of irritation, oNo, no! a little higher" (or "lower"). The spectator, who wants to do things correctly, will be taken offguard at the nNo, no!" At that instant, I take hold of her hands with my hands-thumbs on top, fingers underneath-and move the spectator's hands to the appropriate position (fig.l). At that moment, of course, the transfer is accomplished (frg.2 is an exposed view). The words, oNo, no!" are not unlike ringing a bell in the spectator's ear
INrruerp PowER 139 and calling her to attention. She will, invariably, turn her attention to what it is you are asking her to do. She doesn't want to appear as being "out of it." Ttris is the perfect psychological moment to make the transfer. I immediately continrte,"Nou), make two fists." Again, I demonstrate with my own hands. I maintain eye contact and pick up the pacing here because I don't want the lady to turn her hand over and reveal the mark. Once she has formed her hands into fists the trick is done, but the effect, as the spectator sees it, is just beginning. It is now a question of acting-Iiterally of creating the effect. As I do it, I want the effect to have an element of real mystery about it. Looking for a moment at the spectator's closed fists, I say,"Lower one of your hands." If the spectator begins to lower her unmarked hand, I immediately continue, "and put it behind your back. We're finished with that hand. Don't tnoue your other hand." If the spectator begins to lower t}rre marked hand, I follow it with my eyes and say, "Perfect, right there is fine." Then, looking up at the other (unmarked) hand, I say-as if that hand were now in the way: nHere, rnoue that hand dway.We're finished with it." Either way, the spectator's marked hand is now the center of everyone's attention. I take a piece of paper, a cocktail napkin, a card, whatever-and upon it I draw an outline of a hand. Nothing fancy. The more primitive the better, in fact (fi9.3). My attitude is now serious without being heavy. I am very intent on what I am doing. I say, "This outline will represent your hand in ourVoodoo ritual. To attach your spiritual energy to the paper, your nanxe must be written in the center of the diagram." I write the spectator's frrst name in the center of the drawing in block letters. I now borrow or light a cigaretteall the time looking at the lady's closed fist. I look up into her eyes suddenly, pause for a count of three, and then move the cigarette so that it is being held above the drawitrB, the lighted end pointing down. I pause for a count of seven and, looking her directly in the ey€, say, "I will tell you this once oruly: if you don't moue, it won't hu,rt!" (, Without waiting for a reply, I look down at the drawing and begin lowering the lighted cigarette toward it. I am now mumbling some inaudible words. I am lowering the cigarette slowly, dramatically, frnally holding it against the paper for a moment (frg.4). I suddenly look up at the spectator and ask, "Did you feel it?" Whatever the reply, I say, "Open your hand." Since I have tried to select a woman who I think is reactive, the presence of the dark mark on her palm-it is so very personal ... and physical-will get a very big reaction from the woman and, in turn, from the other spectators present. I allow the reaction to "hit" before I again smile and drop my serious facade. The point here is that the impact will be far greater if the performer jumps in and really playacts it. Really mutter some inaudible words and make a few mystic gestures or passes. Suspend your own disbelief a bit 3
L40 EucBNp BuncER and the audience will suspend some of theirs. I play it as if for these few brief seconds, I really were conducting a Voodoo ritual. You've seen Voodoo movies, haven't you? I do not smile when I deliver the line, "If you don't moue this won't hurt!" The line is too good to have its impact flattened by smiling!You can smile later, when it's over. For the moment, play it seriously and try to stimulate the spectators to wonder what on earth you are doing here! In other words, t}:re effect is created by the performer's acting ability and not simply by secretly transferring a smear of ash from your frnger to the spectator's palm. That latter action may very well be the "trick" but it is not the effect. For the spectators, the effect is what is important. * "Open your hand!" The subject has, indeed, just opened her hand and discovered the ash exactly where the burn is on the rough outline of the hand on the table in front of her. It is one of those delicious moments for a magician! T[lg $loolalorlsl[l0 $[ar One of the easiest ways to create and sustain interest is to put the spectator in the spotlight. If you do this in a non-humiliating, non-embarrassing way, the end result can be entertaining for everyone. I rediscovered the force ofthis point quite by accident this past year at a cocktail party I worked for the Chicago Marriott Hotel. It was a party for
INuuarn PowER l4L prospective convention clients. I arrived before any of the guests. TWo middle-aged couples arrived, got some drinks, and sat down-the two men and one of the women on a sofa set against the wall and the other woman in an overstuffed chair set out from the wall and at right angles to the sofa. I introduced myself as the magician, performed "Cigarette through Quarter," and then thought I would do my Top Change routine (printed in my lecture Audience Inuoluement).lbegan the routine by asking the woman sitting in the chair whether she ever does any card tricks and then announced that she will do this card trick. She giggled. I asked the other lady to select a card and show it to the men. It was at this moment that I fully noticed the large mirror on the wall behind the sofa. I saw it before, of course, in some undifferentiated way, but now, with the lady's card showing quite clearly in the reflection, the mirror was suddenly really there! The lady in the chair saw the reflection too-immediately closed her eyes, put her hand to her head, and said, "I'm getting an impression." Evidently, this is what she thought I wanted her to do. It wasn't-but it was just as entertaining! When she named the card, the other three were speechless. We did it again. And again. And again. Granted, the four of them had quite a bit to drink. This may account for the fact that the three people on the sofa never thought to turn around and see if there might be a mirror on the wall. The truth is, however, that most of the people one performs for at convention hospitality suites have had quite a bit to drink-particularly when the party begins, as did this one, at midnight! What I realized during this mindreading episode, and what I would like you to rcatize as well, is that this whole interlude was most entertaining for the lady involved and for her friends. And, if other people had been present-watching these three people get duped-it would have been entertaining for them as well. I told this story to my friend, Danny Or1eans, and he explained a sequence he sometimes does at parties wherein he takes someone aside and tells him that when the deck is flashed toward him, to look at the bottom card and note it. He then proceeds to force the card in a variety of ways-and the spectator, the star, is able to name it. It's great fun. I realize many magicians frnd the very idea of turning an innocent spectator into a willing "impromptu confederate" to be absolutely beneath their dignity. I, for one, would not want to argue the case with them. In my own work, however, I find that periodic romps such as this are not only wonderfully entertaining, they are also more entertaining for people than many card tricks which require far greater skill to execute well. When talking to Phil Willmarth about this, he told me that Matt Schulien frequently flashed a card about to be forced to an "intimate" and did the mindreading bit. "Hey, Iook, here comes Phil Willmarth, the famous mindreader. Hey, Phil, how about doing a trick for us?" During this introduction, he would have flashed the card and then moved it into position to be forced.
This was also described in The Experience of Magic (Burger; 1989). L42 EuceNp BuRcon Further, Jim Ryan got a lot of repeat engagements by flashing a card to his host-employer, and letting him name a card the host-employer's wife was sitting on by looking down her throat! This is a funny bit and drove the wives crazy. The husband would never tell how it was done and often hired Jim back to do it again! The point I want to make here is this Allowing the spectator to be the star, putting the spectator in the spotlight, creates interest. Should you now be motivated to try this type of thing at a party, especially where the spectator names the card you have forced, here is a strategy for setting up the spectator. Take the person aside, look him or her right in the eyes, and say, "I picked you because you're smart enough to realize that you will be the star ... unless you are foolish enough to tell the others the secret." Very often when I say this, I take the persons' hand and squeeze it for emphasis. I have never had any diffrculty with a person recruited in this way. $sootlil-l|ail $tttofts This is a presentation for the popular move wherein the performer seemingly pushes a cigarette up his nose. First, let me say something about the technique involved and, second, discuss two presentations for the move. The first, which I used for two weeks at the Magic Castle in 1982, is amusing but limited-that is, it is suitable only for adult audiences. The second presentation which I developed has the advantage that it will play well in most any setting, particularly when children are present. (Teen-agers, not five and six year-olds! They might try poking things up their noses!) This is a perfect effect to perform when seated at a table or standing behind a bar. There must be a surface behind which the cigarette can be
INuuarp PowBn L43 dropped. If the cigarette remains in the hand, the effect is ruined. The drop of the cigarette is a matter of timing. The cigarette is held in the right hand between the thumb (at the rear) and the first and second fingers (at the front). If the cigarette has a filter, this is hidden behind the frrst and second fingers. The right hand moves up, touching the cigarette against the side of the nose (fi9.1). The frngers now move-as if pushing the cigarette up the nose-actually sliding up to the nose in front of the cigarette $tg.Z is an audience view, frg.3 is an exposed view). The head is tipped back very slightly. The right hand moves down-and when it is about half way between the nose and the edge of the table, t}lre left hand begins moving up toward the nose. Two things now happen at once: first, the left hand continues up, finally touching the nose with the left second finger. The head is tipped back again and the performer inhales deeply. Second, the right hand continues down to the edge of the table and releases the cigarette into the lap (fig.4). Without stopping, the right hand now moves up toward the nose again. The left hand lowers midway between the nose and the edge of the table and stops (fig.5). The right hand continues up toward the nose, touches the nose with the right second frnger, and the performer inhales once more. The right hand now drops down to the level of the left hand-and both hands are shown empty. In practice-as you will see when you the rhythm, the movement of the two spectators' eyes. Before they reallze it, the hands are empty. try this in front hands together, the cigarette is of a mirror-it is that deceives the really gone-and 7/'/1'
L44 EucpNn BuncER Now for the frrst presentatiott."Do you know uthat this is?" I ask, holding up the cigarette. Very often, people respond,'A cigarette." oNo,'I reply. I look in both directions-as if what I am about to say is very confrdential."I'm almost embanassed to tell you this ... these are cocaine cigarettes." At that moment, I execute the move-and the cigarette is gone. Once the audience has recovered (and that is the word!) I say, "I only do a few a night----or I get headaches!" The problem with this presentation is that it is limited. In some settings, such a presentation would be tasteless. I realize there are readers who will feel such a presentation would be tasteless \n all situations. I don't. I Iind there are many working situations in 1983 where the effect thus presented is topical, surprising, and even funny. (I believe it was H.L. Mencken who said: "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.") What I wanted, however, was a presentation that I could do in settings where children were present-for, when children are present, the above presentationwould be inappropriate to perform. Here is what I developed. "Haue you euer heard of second-hand smoke?" I ask a child. Whatever the reply, I explain, 'You see, if I smoked cigarettes and you didn't-and we are together in an automobile-my smoking would be bad for me primarily, but, secondarily, it would be bad for you. That's called'second-hand smoke'." Picking up a cigarette, I continue, "I tell you this because these cigarettes haue completely eliminated the problern." Generally, everyone looks at me incredulously. "Well, first of all, you don't light them so there isn't any smoke at all. Secondly, you don't smoke them at all-you snort them directly." So saying, I execute the move. After the reaction has begun to subside, I add "They don't last as long this way, but they don't make other people sick!" This second presentation is done regularly by several of my students who do not themselves smoke. Done by a non-smoker with a borrowed cigarette, the impact of the effect upon the spectators is intensified. And, of course, as the cultural image of cigarette smoking becomes more and more negative, making cigarettes disappear will become an even more appreciated effort.
I see close-up magical performance as a ga,rne of wits played between the spectators and myself. I do not see it as a battle of wits. That way of looking at conjuring is,I think, a little too combative. Who is going to like you if you are engaged in a battle with your audience? Granted, for some performers this is precisely what they are attempting to achieve-a battle of wits-and I have seen a few performers who play that role very well. I have seen far more, however, who play it poorly. For myself,I prefer a gentler approach to spectators. Here, for example is an introduction you can use with a wide variety of different card tricks. The performer looks the spectator in the eye and confides: "In performing card magic, I find that people are diuided into two groups: ordinary obseruers and those with discerning eyes-people like you, who really seem to see what's going on here,let me show you this." This is an effective introduction because it singles out the spectator, sets him "up" from mere "ordinary obseryers" and, thereby, dulls his perception with compliments. This is an important stratery for close-up workers to learn. Let's look at it for a moment. Imagine, for example, you looked at the spectator and suddenly screamed, "Child molester!"And then you added: "Here are two cards, the Seven of Diamonds and the King of Clubs." Do you think the poor spectator would even process the two cards at this point? Hardly! He would be so flipped out by the name you had called him and the issues that this raised (not the least of which is, "Will people think I really am a child molester?" or, "Are any of my neighbors present?" etc., etc.) that the cadsmuch less what the cards happen to be-will, as we say, sail right by him. Now corrzpliments, when administered with care,work in very much the same way-except they are not so hard on the spectator as calling him a "communist," a "child molester," or an "atheistic terrorist." Compliments dull the perceptions because the spectator mentally gets caught up in them, "Did everyone at the table hear what the magician just said about me?" is only one of the thoughts that might suddenly rush into his attention. And that is just the point: Successful close-up conjuring deals with manipulating the spectator's attention. The compliment diuides the spectator's attention between what was just soid (the compliment) and what is happening here (the card trick). You'll be surprised what you can get away with after using this introduction. Close-up magic revolves around learning to manipulate the perceptions ofyour audience. The foregoing introduction, taken as it is from the kinds of things that cold readers do and say, is one of the many strategies taken from cold reading which are directly useful-though usually not in their found form-for close-up magicians who do not do cold readings as such. The strategies of cold reading, which are concerned with manipulating
tlt 146 Eucrxo Buncen the perceptions of the "subject" ("victim"), can be an invaluable tool when applied to the close-up magic setting. It is fascinating to obsenre people-and to observe how easy it is to influence their behavior. Consider two examples. First, I place a face-down card in front of a spectator. Later, it will be seen to have changed to another card. Therefore, I don't want the spectator to look at the card after I have placed it in front of him. How can I guarantee that he won't look? Is there a way? Try saying t}:ris "Place your hand on the card and press down." The further instruction, "press down," if followed by the spectator, precludes him from turning the card over. I have successfully influenced his behavior. Second, consider what is implied in the following two directions: "Mix the cards." "Shuffle the cards." Mixing the cards requires far less skill than shuffiing them. If, therefore, I want to let the spectator off easy, I shall ask him or her to mix the cards. Sometimes I add, 'Any way you wish," which really lets the spectator off easy. A simple cut will do, won't it? If I want to apply a little pressure on the spectator,I will ask that the cards be shuffied, then I might watch the shuffling to see how well or poorly it is being done. And, again, I might make lighthearted, but pointed, comments about the spectator's lack of ability! There are, no doubt, hundreds of little strategies like this that are useful in putting the spectator at ease-or in putting him on guard, if that is what you wish to accomplish. $lolliltg $luttltol' Here's the effect: The performer shuffles the deck and hands it to the spectator who is told to begin dealing cards face down from the top of the deck onto the table. He is told, further, that he may stop at any point. Once he stops, he is told to look at the last card dealt, replace it on the tabled cards, and drop the remainder of the deck on top. The cards are squared by the spectator who is then told to cut the deck in half and hand the top half to the performer. nI hauen't euen touched the cords," the performer comments. "Wolildn't it be amazing if you cut at the card you selected?" The spectator agrees that it would be. The top card of the tabled portion is turned over. It is not the selected card. Everyone looks at the performer-wondering how he is going to get out of this clear miss. The performer smiles and says,"You had to go and do it thehardway, didn't you?"The performer looks at the other spectators and then at the cards. He begins spelling the spectator's first name, taking one card for each letter, from the tabled cards. He turns the last card over and it is the selected card.
IlrruarB Powpn L47 The effect here is stunning, especially when the spectators realize the performer did not touch the deck once the card was selected. Second, you are using the spectator's name-"heavy Woo Woo" for the spectator. Very predictable. The presentation, further, is oriented around the idea of frrst failing and then succeeding. The initial failure makes it all the more interesting for the spectators, while the final revelation of the card is wonderfully mysterious. The method is very simple. It uses the Master Card Control grmmick developed in the 1930s by Will DeSeive (his stage name, I hope!) and presented with gleat clarity in Gene Gordon's Magical Legacy on page L28. Very simply, d quarter is placed on the back of a playrng card and with the fingers it is pressed into the card (fig.l), making an indentation (fig.2). If a picture card is used the indentation will be invisible even from the front. With this gimmick some real miracles are possible. Read the material in the Gene Gordon book. (Also read his presentation for "Sword through Neck." I almost went out and bought on*but it would never frt in my close-up box!) For this effect, the gaffed card is brought to the bottom. This is simple because the deck will automatically cut the gaffed card to the bottom of the cut-offportion, particularly if the gaffed card is near the center of the deck. The performer can also cut the deck with one hand at the gaff as Gene Gordon explains. Best of all, the spectator can also be induced to cut at the gaffif he or she is rushed a bit, if the gaffis near the center, and if the spectator is instructed to "Cut the cards in the middle." With the gaffed card on the bottom of the deck, the performer overhead shuffles, running one less than the number of letters in the spectator's name to the bottom of the deck. The deck is now set up: on the bottorn of the deck, for example, are three cards (if the spectator's name is / Mary) and above them is the gaffed card. The deck is handed to the spectator who is instructed to begin dealing cards face down on the table. Allow at least a dozen cards to fall before you li, ( t, tell the spectator that he may stop at any point. He looks at the last card dealt and drops the remaining cards (and the bottom stack) on top of the noted card. Cutting the deck at the gaff, which will bring the gaff to the bottom of the top portion, brings the set-up to the top of the tabled portion. How can I be sure the spectator will cut at the gaffed card? It's a game of wits, remember? First, you want the gaffto be near the center of the deck. If it isn't-and watching the proceedings will tell you where it is-ask another spectator to cut offsome cards and then put the other half on top. Now, the first spectator is asked to'Cut the cards in the middle," and hand the top portion to the performer. Immediately upon receiving the top portion, I apparently square it. Actually, I bend the first finger of my lelt hand inward and, in squaring the pack, I run it over the top of my finger-which can immediately determine whether the gaff is on the bottom (fiS.3). If it is, I know the set-up