I do the following effects from Royal Road on a regular basis:
"Double Reverse"
"Fours of a Kind"
"Do As I Do"
"Design for Laughter"
"Rapid Transit"
"Spectator's Card Trick"

I also do an Ambitious Card routine but, like that of most, if not all, magicians who do one, it is not a duplicate of any single performer's routine but, rather, a personalized routine built LEGO-style from an arsenal of techniques.

From time to time, I also use the "Pulse Trick" and the "Circus Card Trick." I have my own "Three Cards Across" handling.

One mistake many magicians, both young and old, make when dismissing the classics is that they get put-off by the language and/or writing style of the texts or the provided patter. This is SO unfortunate! You have to be able to look at the contextin which the book was written and push past "limitations" which derive from the source era of the manuscript.

If you take the "it ain't any good unless it was written after 1980" perspective, you'll be missing out on a helluva lot more than RRTCM.

Remember, as well, that learning the classics means learning founding principles. Sure, many sleights and effects have been (supposedly) improved over time, but you can't argue against the benefits of knowing where they came from. As well, many times what makes a contemporary handling of a sleight or effect "better" is merely the hype surrounding it or undeserved popularity because some flashy website is selling it for $30 a download.

You mention the "need" to modify some of the effects in Royal Road to suit you. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as the modifications are valuable. The patter for my versions of the above effects is nothing like what's in Royal Road, and I have no problem substituting sleights when I come across something equally or mroe deceptive.

Speaking of deception, consider, as well, who your audience is and why you are performing magic. Are you trying to provide a sense of astonishment and wonder to laymen or are you trying to impress a bunch of finger-flicking magicians? Those two goals and audiences are extremely different, and the effects that work for one will not necessarily work for another.

A little instant gratification now and then can keep you inspired, help you remember what the all hard work is for. Shadowzen has presented a very fruitful issue here. I wish we could give him a big round of applause!

alan

This thread is very funny. Classic Texts good foundation upon which modern texts are built.

Lightning Card,Design for Laughter and Everywhere and Nowhere are truly brilliant effects in RRTCM.
Just my thoughts.
Andre

Heh . . . don't sweat it. I'm in the same boat. However, when you've built up a foundation, you're going to be surer-footed than someone resting on his D'lites -- erm -- laurels. Diligence always pays off. As trite as it sounds, Aesop told a good little story about a race that ought to preface every magic book . . .



Without trying to seem harsh, might I suggest that there are two kinds of "beginners," and "beginner" books cater to one of them. The first is one who truly wishes to excel in the art.

The other is a dilettante.



Those who "just want a few good tricks to blow their friends away" are the same in every art. There are those who beg me to teach them to play "The Pink Panther" on the piano to impress their friends. They also beg me to teach them magic tricks. Without foundation, there is no art; and one who will not develop the foundation is no artist.

I hope I don't sound overly-harsh (since I'm a beginner myself, returning to the art after a long hiatus). Just remember that classic beginner texts were written for those who embark on a journey to excellence, not for those who "want a few tricks." If you just want a few tricks, play a video game.

If magic were revealed to those who wouldn't put forth the effort, it would be nothing. I'm sorry, but as one who is slowly working through RRTCM, Bobo, and The Art of Magic, I find it hard to worry about the inaccessibility of technique to the dilettante.

That said, I don't think magic is difficult for the diligent (of whatever pecuniary persuasion) to get into. I'm a grad student, and living on a student budget myself.

Magic is cheap. Seriously. Buy RRTCM, Bobo, and any general magic text produced from 1900 to 1950 (Magic for ALL by Bob Dunn, and Ottokar Fischer's Illustrated Magic spring to mind) at a used book shop. Pick up a few decks of bikes, ten bucks worth of quarters, halves, Susan Bs, and Sacs (or equivalently-sized coins), and a thumb tip, and you're set for months with only the addition of household items. Add some cotton rope, sponge balls, and silks, and you're still under a hundred for the core apparatus of a decent close-up or impromptu act. Several acts, rather.

Magic becomes expensive when you want expensive gimmicks (not knocking gimmicks in general, but you get more bang for your buck from a five-dollar thumbnail boon than the latest one-trick gadget) and uncommon secrets. That's where you start paying for high-end books and DVDs. However, there's enough for free and cheap that I believe a great small-stage show could be made without consulting anything out of the reach of a small (read "my") budget.

My local IBM ring had Dan Fleischman in for a lecture. Do you know what tricks floored us? His 3-Card Monte and Cups and Balls.

All it takes is gumption and imagination! *grin*

Cheers!
Keith

ps. Shadowzen, I hope you don't take the first half of this personally. I just feel it's important, when discussing beginners to magic, to be certain whether we're talking about someone within or without the art, as it were.

Very, very, very, VERY well said.



Ok, I am going to go ahead and disagree with you here. I understand the point you are trying to make but the part of all this that I don't see discussed enough relates to the fact that there is this little thing known as presentation. I've seen many individuals buy a scotch and soda in Las Vegas and immediately try it out on everybody around. While it is "possible" for somebody to buy a scotch and soda and entertain people, I just haven't ever really seen it happen. I've seen people *think* they are amazing people but not really actually do it. Which brings me to my point.

Despite what many people would like to believe, it takes work to be a truly effective performer. Whether you learn from DVDs or books or from Criss Angel showing tricks on TV, the success or failure of your performance lies less on the magic but how you present it. David Blaine did very simple, very basic effects and become very well-known. Historically, part of the passing on of secrets was the passing on of the knowledge of performance. However, written descriptions relating to performance are relatively dry and boring (I remember the first time I read the description of a classic pass, I was about to fall asleep). Today, things are a bit different.

Tricks are put together and categorized, such as in the ETMCM videos. They are, simply, easy to master card miracles. The interesting thing to me is that most of the effects and methods used in ETMCM are relatively limiting (how many tricks can you really perform using the Olram Subtlety?). In my experience, people who go for the quick and easy route limit their futures, i.e., their ability to create their own acts, from methodology all the way to performance.

I feel that a good act must use a variety of methods and topics in order to be truly successful. If the only force you know is the cross-cut force, then your act is limited and stale. If the only card control you know is a undercut, then, once again, your act is limited and stale. This is where I feel the true background and understanding of effects and methods becomes key. I can't even begin to count how many times an author talks about some new, really hot trick and he starts off about how he got the idea from something he read a long time ago in one of the classics that many seem to dismiss. Of course, if you are content to buy tricks based on the classics instead of developing them yourself (and I am talking to nobody in particular, btw), then that is a choice you have to make and nobody can talk you out of it.

-Carlos

Carlos, yours is a great post, and I agree with you in almost all respects. Nevertheless, the opening question for this topic was from a beginner who is trying to put together an entertaining show, and for him I have some additional advice:

Yes, it is essential to know the classics in order to become a great magician. On the other hand, you can perform a highly entertaining show by doing very well only the sleights necessary for the particular tricks you select.

For a beginner, learning a lot of sleights is hard work and is a very slow way to develop expertise as a perforemer. Thus, in this new era of the DVD, I suggest that you comb DVDs for tricks that you think are powerful foolers and that you think fit your personality well. Then learn these and only these tricks thoroughly. Put them together into a little show of about 15 minutes and go out ane fool some folks.

Select three tricks that relate in some way to one another including a quick opener, a strong middle item, and a powerful closer with a strong climax (e.g. card-in-wallet, bill-in-lemon, card on ceiling, etc.) Pick some classics, not something brand new from the magic store. Also, you probably would do best with items that fit in your pocket and play for close-up or parlor audiences. Don't worry about stage stuff yet. Finally, select tricks having props that you always will be able to make yourself or get in any magic store--not some special packet tricks that will be unavialable in a few years.

As a beginner, you will have some trouble with some demanding sleights, but keep trying them. If you concentrate on only a few sleights, you may find that you can learn what you need to know. If the sleights are too hard for you right now, try another trick. Remember, you do not have to learn all the sleights in Bobo or Hugard; you need only those for your own tricks.

I see a lot of young magicians who show me their card sleights and not any tricks. They look at their cards and disregard their audiences. It is the show that is the thing, not the sleights. This is show business!

The great thing about DVDs versus the books that I bought as I was learning is that you can see audience-tested tricks performed by excellent magicians. For a start, do what they do. They have put their routines on the market for your benefit; you can use them. Do them exactly as you see them if you wish.

After you have fooled a lot of folks and gotten a lot of applause and laughs from your performances, you can begin to develop your own style and tricks. That's the next step, and Carlos and others are right that you will want to be yourself on stage, and you will be well served to learn the classics as you do so. In the meantime, just go out and do some tricks you really enjoyed seening others do on DVDs. Success from doing this will give you the necessary motivation to advance to the expert level yourself.

Good luck on the journey. This is fun stuff that we do.

Best regards.

While I agree somewhat that the effects in Royal Road may not appeal so much to the shorter attention spans that audiences have today, I can not see lumping Card College into this category.

While I don't alway like Giobbi's presentations - in particular, I snicker every time I read him suggesting to use dainty little envelopes when giving away cards - he has included his take on almost all of the strong plots out there in card magic. Triumph, Ambitious Card, Reset, Cannibal Kings, Your Signed Card, Ace Productions and Assemblies, Gambling Demos; they're all in there. Including the Red Hot Mama routine the original poster referred to (Volume 5). And while Giobbi's particular handling or presentation on certain effects may not appeal to me, I always learn something from his ideas. For instance, his presentation and handling for "Your Signed Card" is one of the best I've ever seen.

Don't be so quick to dismiss the effects in Card College. When a professional, full-time magician puts together his take of dozens of the best plots in card magic, its worth sitting up and paying attention.

At that point, it's just acrobatics. I would rather watch Eugene Burger do Gypsy Thread than some guy who can do perfect passes, twisting moves, flourishes, etc. I've seen Burger do this routine countless times, and yet I always get sucked in to the story. Same for his version of Card Warp.

This has been a great thread to read through (I read the whole thing in one sitting), and there's clearly more than one approach to learning magic. In the end, as someone else pointed out, you have to decide who you're doing magic for. If it's just for yourself, by all means learn all the latest twists and moves and esoteric stuff if it gives you pleasure. If you like performing for other magicians (not my cup of tea) and "blowing them away", your approach to learning (and, in fact, what you learn) will be different than mine.

My favorite audience has always been lay people, and there are still plenty who enjoy magic presented in an entertaining way. I always prefer to tell a story where the magic is simply the vehicle that moves the plot along, eventually getting to the conclusion in a surprising and mystifying way. But I have more people who remember my story of the elves and the magic purse (my story line for "Fred Kaps Purse") than remember the magic that happened. Perhaps that makes me a poor magician. But I think I'm one hell of an entertainer. And that's ultimately why I picked up the wand in the first place...

Kent

Kent makes some excellent points, and, like him, I think this thread is a valuable one. He mentions that one does different effects for different audiences: laymen, magicians, and oneself. Yes that is true, but, like Kent, I wonder why anyone would want to do magic just for magicians or just for oneself. Such a person is missing the great fun of being a magician. There are a heck of a lot more laymen out there than magicians, and they will appreciate your show a lot more than magicians. Isn’t that a much bigger opportunity for you to have fun in magic?

Again, for the beginner--for whom this forum was opened--my advice is to have fun with friends at dinners and other events doing some great magic tricks that really fool them. Being an amateur though does present some challenges that professionals do not experience as often. You have to develop a fairly large repertoire of tricks because you cannot overly repeat your material. My advice previously was to learn three tricks that form a mini show—this was advice given to me by the master magician Mike Skinner, who was my instructor in the 70s. The problem for the beginner is that he may need a few of these three-trick shows to keep from being stale in front of repeated audiences. But isn’t this just another opportunity for someone to have fun in magic—more stuff to practice, perfect, and show to live audiences.
Incidentally, the idea of learning three tricks together is a valuable one, I think. The method, in a sense, gives you three tricks from one set of practice sessions. Also, it allows you to smooth the transitions between the tricks. You will have made sure that Trick 1 does not mess up a deck of cards needed for Trick 2 or that a pocket is available for Trick 2 after performing Trick 1—that sort of thing. It also allows you to bring in some fast tricks that are not as entertaining on a stand-alone basis. Not all tricks lend themselves to this of course. For example, when I do the Ambitious Card trick, that usually the only trick I do for a session, although the Ambitious Card routine (from Daryl’s book and video) has three distinct parts and ends with a strong climax, his Ultimate Ambition. Another problem is that the three tricks have to fit together to some extent, and they all have to be stand-up or sit-down, or have to be parlor or close-up.

I hope this helps. Good luck.