I wholeheartedly love Strong Magic and Maximum Entertainment but I felt those were geared more for commercial workers. In other words, how to make you effects good for a paying audience. I personally look at that as a different market for magic to be performed for. As I've stated, and you've agreed on John, many of the effects on TA are not really aimed at adding to a working repertoire (though many can be used for that purpose as well) and it really takes magic to a purer and more childlike state. That is what I feel TA and Paul Harris' later works brought forth to the table. It's as if magic has been trying to propel forward with newer methods and newer plots while sacrificing the foundation of what magic felt like when we had experienced it for the very first time. This is very different from what Strong Magic and Maximum Entertainment discusses, instead it's more in line with Derren Brown's Absolute Magic (though Absolute Magic I would say takes the biscuit for what it is and the kind of theory it teaches). With this, I'm not disagreeing with you John, just pointing out that it's very different from what has preceded TA. It's kind of a reverse process with TA, it makes you seriously think about the material because at first glance it looks like the handling is very watered down as if to appeal to a wider audience of newbies but then when you dissect it, see the footage and really think about it and break it down backwards starting from the audience reactions back to when the routine first starts, do you start grasping why the apparently dumbed down and simplified handlings are used and taught.

A lot of the material looks ho hum at first glance but then when you really think about it, it makes a lot of sense why the material will get great reactions. When you actually perform the material it will start clicking in you mind and that's a great feeling. Things makes more sense and there's a certain clarity of perception that you gain. This "clarity" is really something that we lose along the way as we learn more sleights, more plots, more of everything. It clouds our judgment. That old saying, KISS (keep it simple stupid), we forget that along the line because we're so very conditioned to thinking a certain way and doing things a certain way because we have been doing it and thinking it in that same way for so long.

Frankly, I think how you think of the set will be based on your past experiences as a magician. For example, for the last year or so, I've really had a fear of performing because I was trying to figure out what magic should be and how it should be done or even if it really is valuable to a spectator. The TA set has given me a lot of insight so far, and I still have five replacement discs that should be coming (or my mom is witholding them from me until the weekend). I guess it depends on where you are in your magic life, but for me it's really been amazing and a fresh look at magic and life in general.

Oh my. Where should I start picking this apart?

1) No, quoting him in context made more sense--ya know why? Because it was HIS clarification on what HE meant when people misunderstood him. Unless you think you know what he means better than him, you're wrong. He clearly meant that the set-up time necessary was not worth it for the impact of the effect for HIM. He then elaborated and stated that there were plenty of similar effects, like with cards, that get as good reactions and don't require the set-up time and/or non-impromptu nature for the signatures like with Casanova Inc.. OBVIOUSLY a signatures is necessary to make business cards distinguishable from each other, but the EFFECT, in this case a simple transposition, can be done with things that don't require signatures to convince people they're different because they are naturally different--again, like cards. This is the fourth time in the last day I've seen you misinterpret what I or someone else meant. Whether it's intentional or you're just being incredibly careless, it needs to stop before you become someone not worth talking to.

2) Hold up. First of all your patter, can EASILY shape whether spectators view what happens in BHWII as a change OR a transposition. They're probably even more apt to think of it as a switch or transposition anyway. Second of all, if you borrow a deck or have someone thoroughly examine yours they'll be sure they're "unique objects." Do YOU always have two cards signed to do a simple, two card transposition? Third of all, the version of 'Be Honest, What Is It?' YOU'RE thinking of is Blaine's handling with the Queens and Aces. This requires a slight set up. FECHTER'S version of 'Be Honest, What Is It?", the one I think nimrod was talking about, is impromptu, has a kicker ending, and *IS IN FACT* a transposition and a translocation. What? You don't own Fechter by Jerry Mentzer? Then how about you go buy it and learn something before you start spouting off about things you clearly don't know.

How does it feel to realize you're wrong after condescending to someone with a smug attitude? It makes you look smarmy AND ignorant.

"And I hate to break it to you and Nimrod, but Be Honest, What is It is a card CHANGE, not a card transposition (the PRESENTATION is that of a card transposition,"

Ahahahahah. LOL@U!

And are you always this pedantic? Do you always quibble over THE most inconsequential aspect of an argument and miss the point entirely, or just when you know you're wrong?

3) I know this may come as a shock to you, but it was never MY intention to convince you that there may be people who [gasp] may not like everything in TA and just might have maybe even one criticism(CONSTRUCTIVE OF COURSE) about why they didn't like the effect. MY intention in this thread was to try to get people who JUST MIGHT feel that way to explain *constructively* why they might dislike(!) maybe ONE thing from TA so that I might think through their reasons and see if it would be something that I felt would make the effect just "not for me." That would be helpful to ME, someone who hasn't bought TA. That's why *I* asked for that. And people have come to me through PM and been positive and critical and I feel my expectations are MUCH more accurate now about TA. This is good-- I won't become disappointed if it doesn't live up to the gushing hype OR I'll be pleasantly surprised if it does.

When YOU came into this thread you disagreed with me and I told you why I felt like I wanted some constructive criticism. YOU argued back about why what *I* thought was wrong. Listen to me: it's cute and everything that you think I actually care whether or not you're convinced--in a creepy way. It's just too creepy that you refuse to just accept that I genuinely don't care. I don't know where you got your unfounded and inflated sense of self-importance that you think I somehow owe YOU an explanation for MY reasoning. I don't--flat out. I explained why I felt how I felt and now I'm moving on.

How about this: why don't YOU tell me your constructive criticism? You posted your brief, vague, extremely positive review of TA in this thread earlier--typical of most positive reviews I've read here. You admitted though that NOT everything was for you. So why don't YOU tell ME what effects in TA you personally didn't like and explain why? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IN THIS THREAD. You said everything wasn't for you, so tell us why. That's exactly my issue with the vast majority of positive reviews: vague, positive, and not ONE criticism. So where's yours? After all, your review WAS positive and you yourself said(and I agreed btw) that they can be both positive AND critical. So go ahead and tell me. Or is it too taboo to do that? Apparently it's taboo to even ASK for CONSTRUCTIVE criticism by the way I've been swarmed on, this thread hijacked, and truth oppressed.

Engali

Play nice now boys. Play nice. By the way, Nimrods comments on Backlash 2 was pretty much unsubstantial as the points he made were easily debunked. If you're going to come out and say something is bad (especially when it's not only actually pretty good, but also agreed upon by most that it's pretty good), whatever points you make has better be strong enough to be put under scrutiny.

Engali (aka internet tough-guy),

If you don't know the difference between a change and a transposition, I'm not sure I can debate you. Metamorphosis is a transposition. Lady to tiger is a change (what Fitzkee called a transformation). These are different types of effects. Similar, I'll agree, but different. Again, Casanova Inc., allows you to show a uniquely marked object outside of the spectator's possession when really she has it already between her hands. If you don't see the benefit of that, I guess we're at an impasse.

And you're wrong, Nimrod was talking about Blaine's presentation of Be Honest, What is It (not the one in the Mentzer book). Do you want me to block quote it for you or can you handle that yourself? And Blaine's presentation is that there's going to be a transposition ("I'm going to make that card switch with that one.") but there isn't, that's the sucker part of the trick. Remember that hearty laugh you had above that you thought was at my expense? Yeah, I guess it's probably not so funny once I explained how you were mistaken.

But anyway, here's a final tip: When you're trying to pretend you "genuinely don't care" what other people think, try not to use so many words and CAPS doing so. It belies a different truth.

I'll let you go now to continue on with your crusade against the non-existent people who aren't allowing dissent on this set.

Blah blah blah. You actually don't know which one he meant because he didn't specify. He did mention *in context* that it was impromptu and a transposition--which fits Fechter's version of BHWWII and not Blaine's. Way to duck the question. So you don't have Fechetr? Stop talking about stuff you don't know please. Fechter's version is a transposition and translocation--look it up and learn something. Yeah, feel free to quote Nimrod where he said he specifically used Baline's handling. Convenient you left out any evidence for your own argument.

As I'[ve already stated the effect has enioygh room for patter to shape how spectator's perceive the effect--already said this. This is what's important--their perception of it, not yours.

Caps were to emphasize points that you are(intentionally?)missing again...and again...and again. But please, continue trolling this thread with kissadookie patting your back the entire way. Go ahead and prove my point by hijacking this thread and making anyone who might've considered posting *A* criticism from doing so. Go ahead and duck my request for YOUR criticisms of TA even though you admitted yourself that not everything was for you. You're only proving my points.

You hit the nail on the head there Engali, the spectators perception is what matters, not the magician. This is why the effects on TA appears to be weak and sometimes silly but in action, they actually hit the spectators quite hard.

Any other questions?

I don´t realy think there is a "worst" effect, I think that every effect on the set is great in their own way, just because it does not fit your style it does not mean its a bad effect.

However I feelt that Chengs change and chengs riser did not fit with the rest of the "theme" of the dvd set, but they are still great effects.

Nope, Cheng's material was different from the rest of the set. His material however has been fairing better with most magicians then a lot of the really good effects on the set (mostly because they are cool methods). However, he's on there because Cheng really is that *** good and I see how Paul is very appreciative of excellent thinkers and thus he's on the set. By no means was Cheng's material bad, it was just not in line with the rest of the material, or like fridoliina89 states, not in line with the "theme" of the set.

Yes actaully. You were right about this minor detail--why do you choose to focus on this aspect of the issue when the larger point being made by Nimrod still stands? It's clear what he meant and what his point was--and yet you nitpick about this thing to distract from the actual point being made. It's as if you're choosing to neglect what Nimrod is actually saying, choosing one thing that is a really a negligible detail of the larger point being made, and then pretending like you're right about the argument we're actually having.

And anyway, at very least the version of BHWII I was thinking of is a transposition, so you're right about Nimrod's comment but not about mine. But really the point is that Nimrod didn't think Casanova Inc was for him and gave legitimate reasons why. They're still valid reasons even if you disagree with them.

And stop dodging the question: what is it about TA that you didn't find to your liking and explain why already. If you can't do something as simple as that then you're proving me right--the positive reviews are largely NOT critical because the reviews themselves don't contain a single example of constructive criticism. Your reviw is the poster boy example of that.

Just because you want him to post what he feels negatively about the set, that doesn`t mean that he has to. That`s HIS decision.

Engali-

Let's retrace. This all started because I felt Nimrod's statements didn't make a whole lot of sense (they don't to me because he's comparing two different types of effects). You said I was twisting his words by paraphrasing him. I said I was trying to make him look better by leaving out the obvious mistake in his comment and going right to the heart of it. You got a big kick out of me being "wrong," when it turned out I wasn't. That's the ONLY reason we're talking about Nimrod. It isn't a "minor detail," it's the exact reason I don't think his "critique" was all that insightful, which is why I brought him up in the first place. But okay, enough Nimrod, enough of that conversation which is going nowhere.

My point --this whole time-- is that you're unlikely to find much criticism of the set because there was a high bar set for the material on the set and a lot of creative minds behind it, not just Paul Harris. It's like asking, "What's the worst recipe at the Pillsbury Bake-Off?" By the time the recipes have got to that point you're down to personal preferences, not so much "good" and "bad." So my personal review of what effects weren't right for ME, is somewhat meaningless to you. And in this case I literally mean FOR YOU. I can tell that you and I have very different performance philosophies. You seem to have a very strict allegiance to the ideas in Strong Magic. There are great ideas in that book for a structured show and it sounds to me like you want to put on shows. I don't do "shows," I perform casually. And what has set magic back 100 years and made it corny in the eyes of many if not most laymen, is that people use the same advice that's given for shows (i.e., fully scripted patter, making things into routines, worrying about structure and audience management) for casual performances and it ends up alienating the people your performing for. I want to use magic in my interactions with people the same way I use humor: organically and (seemingly) spontaneously. So some of the longer routines (Reset) for example, don't work with the way I perform. But Reset is a great effect for walk-around magic or a close-up show. So me saying, "I don't like reset," is not all that useful. I agree with your assessment of Backlash II, that it's missing an internal logic (same for the updated Color Stunner in this set). But in a casual performance setting I find this kind of thing works better FOR ME than a four-phase, well-structured, ace-assembly for example. It feels more spontaneous and that's what I strive for.

That's why I'm not writing a review full of "constructive criticism." I don't have much to offer. I only have effects that speak to me, and some that don't.

But I'm about to get in a car to go to Lake Placid with my friends for a weekend of snowboarding and staying in a beautiful rented cabin. So you can have the last word on this topic and call me a d-bag, or a moron, or a loser, or "smarmy and ignorant," or whatever you want to call me. You can imply I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm twisting peoples words or that I'm a delusional fanboy who can't see past the hype. I will give you the final word to define me in this thread if you want. The great thing about a message board is that everything we've written is here for posterity and people can make up their own minds about you or I and who is "right" (If there is even a right or wrong in this discussion). Which only seems appropriate because if I've had any thesis in this thread it's that people should rely more on their own evaluation of things. So take care and have a great weekend.

I'll put down another "Jeers" to TA. It's a strange world in magic to me when someone puts out a demo video that is 5 minutes and shows no magic. Just people going "WOW!, How did you do that.". Yet the magicians all over the land quickly state "I can't wait to buy this, it's Paul Harris!".

So I finally got a showing of all 9 disks and I really don't understand how or why magicians can think this is a great set...or even a good set. And how so few really stepped back and gave an honest review. In the end it is my humble belief that this set was more about the money than the magic. 300 dollars for half baked ideas, steps backwards, and yes...a handful of fairly good effects for people that say things like "This set was worth the price just for _________".

I suppose I may just be the polar opposite of the types of people that post in Café. My bread and butter are books like Vernon Chronicles, Complete Walton, and Conjuring Anthology. And videos such as Fenik, or classic Larry Jennings. My only point in even saying that is, how can people that study what I would call "great magic", watch the TA series and think they are special. I just will never understand.

I hate the number system, but I would give TA a 4/10. I'm sure it's a money maker though. I found what wholesale for the boxes were, and got a chuckle. I suggest getting say one "Castle Notebooks" or something instead.

One man gathers what another man spills. Hopefully at least one person will agree....because I know I'm going against the grain. I found in my magic circle there were many poor reviews also. Why Café is so different I'll never understand fully.

You're definitely the polar opposite but in a way that's different than what you're claiming. If you take a look at what you're considering is "great magic" it's a very different train of thought than what is on TA or even the Art of Astonishment books. Vernon, Walton, Fenik, all excellent magicians but all similar in that they were more about the technique and relied on technique as well as a very classic train of thought for their magic. Yes, they have wonderful material but the feel of their material is drastically different from the direction that Paul Harris went. Just take a look at Fizz Master, it is NOT something that Vernon, Walton, Fenik, or Jennings would have come up with. Take that into consideration.

The best I can describe this is while one creates magic by isolating the effect and taking themselves more or less out of the picture, the other creates a magical atmosphere and memory that includes all that are present.

Alas. You somewhat hit part of my point. Fizz Master is in AOA. Most of the "good stuff" everyone has in AOA already. The hype will say that this version of Reset takes it to the next level. No it doesn't, it's a huge step backwards. Progressions such as Gregory Wilson's version or Bill Malone's reset was a progression. I just don't see it at all. I would perhaps use 3 of the effects on the set that were not in AOA already. And most any card effect on the set I could recommend a much better version (without much debate I'd think).

I'm glad so many people like it. I'm just weirded out so many people "lost sleep with excitement" and the mass praise even more.

I guess in a nutshell I don't see many magicians that have been around the block (say Denny or Sadowitz) viewing this in the back room and thinking it's anything special either.

I didn't hit any of the part of your point Darkstar. When I mentioned Fizz Master I was referring to the AoA books, not the video. What I originally wanted to use as a comparison to the different thinking and directions in magic was the one bit using McDonald milkshakes that was in AoA Book 2. It's one of my FAVOURITE items but pretty much nobody remembers it.

Basically it's like this, you're doing something along the lines of "This is a rip off because it's not the way I like my magic." That is illogical. I appreciate magic from both the technician's aspect as well as the so called Paul Harris aspect. This way you have a broader scope to fall back on. Making sense? In other words, you can't say something is crap when you're comparing apples and oranges. Two different fruits, you like the apple but not the orange. Giving a "review" based on preference is not much of a review, it's basically just stating your preference. In that case it really should've been more of a "This is not my style."

Your using the snake oil of saying my logic is incorrect because I'm comparing card effects with card effects. And the subject is TA. Walton didn't smash cans! (?)

The Out Of This World on TA is the worst I've ever seen in my whole life. But it's been praised many times here "TA for the win!" I don't see Denny or Sadowitz or anyone that has been around the magic block, viewing TA and being impressed. That is just my bold, yet I think sound claim. (but they don't smash cans!)

Anyway, this could bounce back and forth forever. Café is one of my favorite places to read....but I make every point to stay away from reviews around here. It's rare to see what I would consider an honest, well thought out criticism of products. Then again, that's what Café is known for.

I'd make a sound bet too Lumberjohn doesn't care "what's cool" and what people made "the new cool idea". That's all Paul really has ever been. A good example here is the ripped and re fried. People are more "cool" about the method...can't be the effect, because it IS flawed much more than most torn and restored card plots on many levels. Cool idea? Yeah sure, but I'm 100 percent out to entertain laymen. AOA DOES have some great items but most that are realistic with magic and themselves will tell you pound per pound it's fluff. It's more of a trend your friends tell you is fantastic, than really looking for yourself. Millions of records are sold this way in the modern world too. Thus TA is the same. (really)

How does Ripped and Fried have presentational flaws?! It's a rendition of the sawing a lady in half illusion with cards.

This is where you all really trip me out. The presentation of magic can be whatever you like as a first point. Secondly it's not fully examinable. Why run when you are not chased? True. But on the other hand what your using laymen SHOULD want to inspect (even if they are kind and don't ask). After all you are using 1 more open card than the normal torn and restored.

I mean these things are myself pointing to the moon...I can show you, but I can't take you there. Sooner or later in people's magic lives that collect books and really study you see things like Ripped and Fried and right away know magicians will be more fascinated with the actual method than comparing it to what a performance will look like to laymen, and how examinable the material is...as to say what is really important in spectators eyes. Torn and Restored is an effect best as ONE card being torn and restored. I mean, in this case hiding behind patter of sawing a lady in half, and thinking that is good enough, just blows my mind. It is errored magically speaking. To me it should be obvious. Cool method though!