Guy Hollingworth - Drawing Room Deceptions - Preface.pdf - G - animga

DRAWING ROOM DECEPTIONS

It is often said that the most useful content of a magic book is to be found in the preface: this is where the author

expounds his theories and ideas on the art of magic; where he passes on his secrets of performance and misdirection.

Undoubtedly this is often the case, but one would be more inclined to believe it were it not so often said with a smug sense of

superiority by those enlightened people who have realized that in fact the tricks are not important; it is only the psychology and

presentation that really matter. Whilst this is also usually true, surely we should not lose sight of the fact that many amateurs and

hobbyists (myself often included) buy books to read the tricks, and surely there is nothing wrong with that. Indeed this is what

drew most of us to magic in the first place.

Furthermore, if this is meant to be the meaningful section of the book, I am faced with a problem: what can I, an

inexperienced 24 year old, possibly say that has not already been said before? I am unlikely to be able to explain any deeper inner

meaning of magic that has not already been discovered, and I have certainly not devoted the time and energy that many others

have to provide new ideas on the principles of misdirection. Equally, why should you have any interest in self-indulgent stories of

how or why I became interested in magic? For this reason, I think that I could best service those of you who have battled this far

through my preface, by using it to explain a trick; at least this way you can indeed say that you have gained something from this

book that those less virtuous souls who have leapt to the first chapter will have missed.

For this endeavour the subject of voodoo is discussed; it is explained that a witchdoctor will create an effigy of the

thing or person whom he wishes to affect, and whatever is done to the effigy in turn happens to the subject. This will

be recreated with a pack of cards, each card conveniently having an effigy: the card of the same value and colour.

$ Accordingly, terrible things done to a chosen card are seen to be happening to its mate. (I should mention that the

idea of the voodoo card came from reading Steranko's book, in which there is a triumph-style routine based on a

voodoo presentation.)

To prepare for this effect, it is necessary to remove two mates from the pack; the 2 of diamonds and hearts

for example. One of them must be damaged in two ways: firstly it must be scorched on the back, so that there is a

black burn mark in the centre, although care must be taken not to heat the card to such an extent that the face also

becomes discoloured. (A candle seems to me to work best for this.) Then one of the two indexes must be torn off; no

finesse or neatness is required here. This mutilated card is then placed face up on the bottom of the pack with the torn

corner at the top left. Its undamaged mate is placed face down below it. At the commencement of the trick, after the

discussion of the horrors of voodoo, a spectator is assigned to be the witchdoctor. The cards are casually spread in the

hands during this discourse, taking care not to expose the reversed card; they are then nonchalantly cut, centralizing

the prepared card.

The card below the torn card will be forced by means of a riffle force; some logic is afforded to

this procedure by explaining that as soon as the spectator-cum-witchdoctor touches a card, some terrible

catastrophe will befall its effigy, and thus the cards must not be touched until after the spectator has made

his decision.

The torn corner of the damaged card provides a short corner by which to force the card. With the cards in dealing grip,

the left thumb riffles down the side of the pack, and the spectator is asked to call "stop"; the riffling is timed, such that he will call

"stop" at about the middle of the pack, and the thumb instantly riffles down to the short corneT where the riffling naturally stops.

By lifting off the upper portion and thumbing off the card below, the undamaged of the two mates has been forced in a seemingly

fair way. This apparent fairness is important, as the presumption by the spectator that his choice was random is the key to making

this relatively simple trick effective. The top half is replaced and the cards are turned end for end in a squaring motion and put on

the table, so that the torn corner is now facing towards yourself.

The spectator is asked to turn over the card on the table, to reveal its identity; this simple action of turning the card face

up, you explain, begins the voodooism, as the mate of the card will behave in a similar way. Spreading the cards out from left to

right on the table shows that one card, the mate of the selection, has indeed acted similarly and turned itself over in a mysterious

manner. (The torn corner of this card is hidden below the spread, so that it appears to be a normal card at the moment.) This in

itself is a powerful effect, assuming that the force was not suspected.

The spread cards are gathered up and again turned end for end, whilst you mention that of course voodoo is

generally used to inflict damage. "What sort of damage shall we inflict on this hapless card?" you enquire. The

number of responses that can be given is somewhat limited to: tear it;

burn it; fold it or possibly mark it, the last two being the least common. You are trying to force them to suggest tear-

ing it, as this is the first part of the effect. If "mark it" is called, suggest that it could be marked by tearing off a

corner. If"fold it" is called, suggest that one of the corners is folded down; then continue that the corner could

actually be torn off to take it one step further. If "burn it" is called, Isuggest this is a little too drastic to start off with,

but that we will try it in a moment. If "tear it" is called, as it frequently is, then all is well and good. (These ideas

were given to me by Bob Stencel, and then expanded by Paul Harris in his fine Art of Astonishment books.) Once the

decision has been made that the card will be torn, your witchdoctor is instructed to tear off a corner; perhaps, you

elpfully add, a corner with an index should be torn off,

removing a part of the card's identity. When done, the recently torn card may be put face up on the table,

and the pack is again spread from left to right, revealing that the same corner of the reversed card has now also been

mysteriously torn off; the second effect.

A small subtlety is now used, apparently to show the backs of both of the cards. Remove the reversed card

from the spread with the right hand; pick up the other card and place it below that card, so that both cards are held in

the right hand, spread a little, as if to compare them. Have another spectator hold out a hand, and casually turn the

right hand over; flashing the backs of the cards (as the burn is hidden behind the unburned card). Turn the hand back

so that the faces of the cards are seen and push off the top card on to the spectator's hand. This little

"flushtrationesque" move simply implies that there is nothing on the back of

the card on the spectator's hand, when in fact it is already burnt.

Finally, the card that you are left holding will be burnt on the back. Giving your witchdoctor a match which he should

light, hold the back of the card over it, thereby burning it in a similar place to the prepared card, playing up the possibility that the

other spectator could feel heat on his hand as this is done (which he often will agreeably do). All that remains is to show that this

card is now also burnt to conclude the effect. The level of drama that you give to this effect is up to you, but it has been taken

surprisingly seriously when I have performed it in the past, no matter how jocular my manner.

Having cunningly explained this effect without the aid of illustration, which would have aroused suspicion amongst those

boorish folk who have ignored this preface, let us now rejoin our foolish friends and commence the book properly.

A Destroyed and Reproduced Card:

Let us address a problem common in magic: how can we make an object disappear and re-appear in a seemingly

impossible location? We find one of two basic ways; either the object is somehow secretly placed into the impossible location, or

a duplicate of the object is there from the start. In the case of a playing card being found in an envelope for example, the easier

method is to use a duplicate card, but this is in danger of being unconvincing as the audience is likely to suspect as much.

Magicians have therefore tended to have the card signed, requiring them to resort to the alternative method of secretly loading it;

the card in wallet for example.

However; a simpler method, which has rather been overlooked, is to arrange for the duplicate card to have the same

signature on it. Perhaps the reason that this has tended to be overlooked is because of its seeming impossibility, but by using a

relatively simple ruse, involving nothing more than a double lift and a top change, I propose to demonstrate that it is not

impossible at all, but on the contrary, quite straightforward!

The method will require you to be performing in a reasonably formal setting; it cannot be performed surrounded and

hence not in a strolling or reception environment. It can, with care, be performed in a banquet setting, where the audience is

seated around a table, but it is best suited to the situation of a small show, where you are performing to a group of people who are

sitting ahead of you; a small theatre or show room is of course ideal, but a drawing room, or even a group sitting casually at a

private party is perfectly feasible. The reason for this is that it

is necessary to show a spectator standing or sitting next to you the face of a card, whilst not allowing anyone else to see it. This is

not difficult, but it does require a little planning.

Ideally, a volunteer would be seated to the right of you at a table, and the rest of the audience would be sitting in a

reasonably orderly fashion a few feet the other side of the table. (A second spectator may be seated to your left in the interest of

symmetry) Suppose that you were to turn to your right so that you were facing the volunteer; with the cards face down in your

left hand, if you were to turn over a card, face up on top of the pack, it is not difficult to tilt the hand very slightly towards your

assistant, so that, whilst it is being shown in a very natural way to him, it is impossible for anyone else to see it ~g. 1).

Suppose now that instead of turning over a single card, you turned over two cards as one; a double turn-over in other

words. You could show that double to the spectator on your right, without anyone else being able to see its face. Now by turning

that double card face down again, and immediately thumbing off the top card of the pack, you have switched the card which the

spectator saw for a different one. This could be taken with your right hand as you turn back towards the rest of the audience, and

shown to them at chest height. Provided it is held slightly forward, and therefore in front of the eye line of the spectator to your

right, the entire audience can see the card, except for that person to your right (f~ig. 2); in other words the exact opposite of the

former situation. Using this simple procedure, you have switched the card which the spectator on your right has seen, for another

which the rest of the audience believe

is the same one; a situation of dramatic irony has been created.

The use of such a principle in this chapter is not to switch the card as such, but rather to switch the signature that is

written on the card. The real signature of the spectator is switched for a generic signature, a duplicate of which may be secured in

an impossible location.

You will need three cards of the same value to bring about this basic effect; on two of them you must write a signature

which looks as though it could be genuine, but which is not distinguishable as anyone's in particular. A couple of signatures that I

use have been included for your reference (figs 3 & 4), but you could just as well invent an illegible signature of your own.

Alternatively, you could keep your eyes open for messy signatures on cheques or letters that you receive, and copy one of them;

medical prescriptions are an ideal source of inspiration. It is worth practising the signature on some scrap paper until you can

duplicate it as similarly as your own. Then you can write them with a marker pen in approximately the same place on two of the

cards.

I should make it clear that this is certainly not the first time that the idea of a fake signature has been used; several

magicians have some extremely clever routines using them; Max Maven and Billy McComb spring to mind. However, generally

a court card is used to disguise the signature as much as possible, whereas in this instance, the signature should be as clearly

visible as possible, as the effect is most deceptive if the audience is convinced that they are seeing the same card. I therefore

suggest using a low red spot card, and making the signature quite large.

One of the cards which you have signed is put in an envelope, or a nest of boxes, or whatever other seemingly impossible

location you choose, which you may like to give to another member of the audience at the outset; we will assume that it has been

given to the lady seated to your left. The other signed card is put on top of the pack, with the unsigned duplicate (or more

precisely triplicate) on top of that.

The top card of the pack must then be forced on the spectator seated to your right, in readiness for the switch already

explained; needless to say it should be forced in the most convincing manner; which would probably suggest a classic force.

However; if the force is missed, an embarrassing situation could occur, so you may prefer to use a slip force or a dribble force

instead. This unsigned forced card is freely shown to the entire audience (including the spectator on your right) with the right

hand. As this is done, the left hand which holds the pack drops to the side and turns over the top card secretly, as explained in

Chapter One. To refresh your memory, no particular technique is required here, it is simply a matter of pushing over the top card

with your thumb and turning it over against the side of the leg without anyone noticing. Having shown the card to the audience

with the right hand, it is placed face up on top of the pack, keeping the left hand tilted towards you so that the top card (which is

the signed duplicate) is not revealed. A double card is now on top of the pack as required for the switch.

The rationale for putting the card on the pack is to free your right hand to get a marker pen out of a pocket. Turning to the

right, the spectator is invited to sign the card

on its face; the hand is held in the same way as explained previously, so that its face is angled slightly towards him,

making it easier for him to sign, but more importantly so that the audience cannot see his signature.

When he has done this, the top two cards of the pack are turned over as one, whilst turning back to the rest of

the audience, and the top card is immediately thumbed off and shown to them, without letting the person to your right

see it, thereby switching the signature on the card (f~ig. 2 page 223). They have just seen an unsigned card, then they

saw someone sign it, and now they are looking at a signed card; naturally they will assume that they are seeing his

signature. Added to this is the fact that the spectator on your right has no desire to see the face of this card again, as

he has just seen it, which makes the whole procedure very casual and fair. However; a few things should be

considered to make it as convincing as possible.

You do not want the audience to pay too close attention to the volunteer as he is signing

the card, or they may be able to get some idea of what he is writing by the movement of the pen. I

therefore make a direct remark to the audience or to the spectator on my left, as he is signing the

card, in the hope of distracting their attention somewhat.

Secondly, you do not want the spectator to spend too long signing the card, as it is likely

that your generic signature will look quite fluid and hurried. Therefore I ask him to sign it with

his normal signature, as if he was signing a cheque "for maximum authenticity"; he is then less

likely to write his name in capital letters, for example. Equally, when he has signed the card, just

before the switch, I tend to make a comment such as "are you a doctor by any chance Sir?"; this

little joke firstly implies that the signature is illegible (even if it isn't) and also provides a moment

of amusement and hence relaxation in which to do the switch.

Finally you would do well not to choose someone who is clearly part of a couple in the

audience, nor the head of a company who signs all the pay cheques; in other words, you should

ideally choose someone whose signature is unlikely to be known to the rest of the audience. If

you feel unable to judge this, it is perhaps advisable to choose someone from the back, so that

even if they are with people who may know their signature they will be able to see it less clearly.

Having said that, consider how many people's signatures you could actually identify; I suspect

that apart from close family, the number is very small, as even friends are likely to sign

Christmas cards and the like with a first name rather than a full signature

Whilst the card is being shown to the audience, the

rest of the cards can be put down on the table. The card must then be vanished or destroyed in some way. I like to

burn the card, but feel that to burn it in full view of the audience would make its re-appearance unbelievable; there-

fore I put it very fairly into an envelope which I then burn. (You might consider the following subtlety: having put

the card into the envelope so that the audience can see its face, open the envelope slightly, so that only the back of

the card can be seen as you turn to the chap on your right; ask him to check that his card is inside. He will say yes,

assuming that the significance of the comment is that the card is still in there, but it is often interpreted by everyone

else as a verification that he has seen his signature on the card in the envelope.)

Having burnt the envelope, and hence destroyed the first card, the pack is casually picked up, whilst you

bring attention to the impossible location, which if you recall we are assuming is another envelope given to the lady

on your left. Whilst discussing the fairness of the conditions you walk around the front of the table and invite the lady

to stand up and join you there. You should guide her so that she is standing to your left, facing the audience, close

beside you, and so that both of your backs are to the signatory. This second spectator may remove the card from her

envelope, and show the audience, who see the identical card with the identical signature, and with luck, react

accordingly. Of course the first spectator cannot see the card, as you are standing in the way fig. 5).

Taking the card from her with your right hand, you thank the second spectator for her help and bid her return

to her seat. The effect is by now considered to be over; so it

is an easy matter to top-change the card for the top card of the pack, which is the card which was really signed. This is done as

you turn to your original assistant, so that by the time you are facing him you are holding his actual card. This is shown to him as

you thank him also for his help, of course ensuring that no-one else can see it. I usually drop it face up on top of the pack, so that

it can be casually shown to him in the same way as it was before he signed it. He then returns to his seat, convinced that the card

bore his signature all along.

This is now a regular part of my performing repertoire, although it is nerve-racking to do the first few times. However;

you will quickly become used to it, and learn to thrive on the adrenaline (or at least relax a little). The key is to choose a quiet

spectator; perhaps of an older generation, possibly well dressed, possibly a lady; someone who will sit patiently to your side

without getting up from the chair at an unexpected moment. I mention this only as an aside and do not wish to alarm you, as in

the many times that I have performed the effect, this is yet to happen.

An alternative impossible location that I like to use is a sealed pack of cards. By opening it carefully so that it can be re-

sealed, the cards can be removed and the duplicate card positioned face down in the face-up pack, exchanging it for the card of

the same value, so that it is in place in the numerical sequence. Having sealed it again, this apparently new pack can be given to

the second spectator; and when opened and spread face up, one card is seen to be reversed; its location implies its value, thereby

building up the tension. When removed and shown to have the same signature, the effect is truly startling.

A Card at Any Number:

It is hoped that other uses of this principle will be found. The possibility of having essentially a duplicate signature would

seem to present a number of alternative methods for existing routines, as well as making others that were previously unfeasible,

quite possible.

An extension of the idea is to have more than one identical card. To have a few would allow a card to disappear and

reappear in any one of a number of different locations, which could be very effective. For instance, one possible ending to the

above routine would be to have a number of envelopes, all containing an identically signed card which could be offered to a

member of the audience. Whichever is chosen will contain the previously destroyed card. However; taking it even a step further;

we would arrive at the natural conclusion of having an entire pack made up of identical cards with identical signatures.

Such an idea implies a great deal of preparatory work, but in fact, having taken the time to practice a signature, it does

not take long, having bought a pack of 52-alike cards, to put this signature on every one. They do not need to be absolutely

identical, as they will never be compared next to one another; as long as in isolation they look the same, that is all that matters.

Two things should be borne in mind if you intend to undertake this task. Firstly, it is as well to find two one-way forcing packs

with the same card, as every time you do the trick, a blank card of the same value will be required as well; in other words you

will use up a lot of those cards, and to use a new pack each time is wasteful and ecologically unsound. Secondly, for reasons that

will become clear shortly, the signatures should all be written

on the lower halves of the cards only (refer back to figs 3 & 4). This is quite a natural way for someone to sign a

card, and it will allow the pack still to be used as a means of forcing the card.

The last part of the preparation is to place a different card on the face of the pack as a cover card; it is a

good idea to mark the back of that card with a dot or scratch, so that it is recognizable as a different card when seen

from the back. Likewise an unsigned duplicate of the card must be placed on top of the pack. This card should also

Guy Hollingworth - Drawing Room Deceptions - Preface.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: