Practicability

I think you will agree that there is 4 types of trick:

-The one that is not good.

-The one that is average but easy to do.

-The one that is good but too hard to do. (3)

-The one that is great and furthermore practical. (4)

I think we'll both agree on the first two but I want to spend some time on the last 2 point which from now on I will call (3) and (4).

There is lot of routines out there from various magicians.

When you learn a new one or create one you first analyse the effect. Is is powerful enough, will it deceive your audience...

Once you know or create the solution you'll probably try to balance both solution and effect.

Now a question should appears in your mind. Is it practical?

What does it mean?

Is the effect enough strong to use all the techniques/gaff/setup which are involved in?

For instance imagine an effect where you need a 12 cards setup for a single effect. You won't probably do it for the simple reason you don't think the effect worth all the setup needed.

Personally I think the Grail (trick I talked about this morning) will fit in (3) because even if it's an excellent effect and very clean but unfortunately it doesn't worth the set up. Whereas an effect like Diplopia by Paul Vigil belongs to (4) for the simple reason that with 2 techniques you obtain a killer effect. You just have to work on a glimpse and the clocking. This is one of my favorite effect and I always get good reactions with it also because it fits to my character.

But don't think because it's gaffed I won't like it. We can example here use the Kickback effect by Ryan Swigert which involves few props but deliver an awesome impact. I'm also quite in fond of Dice man by Andy Nyman and Kollosal killer by Kenton Knepper. I file all this tricks in the (4) because of their practicability.

To sum it up analyze your trick and try to calculate the practical/effect ratio. If it's under 1 don't do it...

Close prediction/selection

I've just realized a funny thing.

An effect where a match between a close prediction with a card occurs is much more stronger than retrieving a lost selection.

Well I watched yesterday The grail by Mike Rose and here the spectator doesn't choose a card but a prediction is placed face down on the table at the beginning. Furthermore the deck starts in the box and the spectator deals the card.

It's quite impressive even if it's not so practical.

Why I think it's funny because it's easier to get a prediction match than to retrieve a selection for the simple reason that you don't have to control it. Moreover since audience doesn't know what is going on, they won't be stuck on your hands trying to catch a move. Whereas if you have a selection then audience know this card will be involved in the future and will probably be the main key in routine or effect so audience will try to follow the card.

Clever methods

I was talking recently about my aacan and I've continued to stick to the presentation of the estimation thing but have changed the procedure in order to achieve getting a more practical method.
Well I'm quite in fond of automatic trick. By the way I've started to read trapdoor...just awesome.
And personally the best trick's construction is the mix of deceiving technique and a smart mathematical solution...in fact it's semi-automatic trick nothing revolutionnary. Furthermore I'm always waiting for nectar of cards.
Because of what it implies is you're now able to focus on the speech and get some freedom. We can also say that generally these types of tricks are more an experience than a show off.
I want again the spectator be part of the trick and no more the one who watch. This is my ideal magic.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.7