MAGIC Magazine is publishing a trick of mine

[Cain]

March issue, it's called "The Third Card."

Effect: The two jokers are isolated in the card case. Any named selection materializes between them.

---------------------------

For anyone who's had their tricks published, what was your reaction to the write-up?

Now having read the article... I'm a little disappointed. Some background.

I initially submitted a video. There was a misunderstanding. So I submitted a streamlined video (where I come off a tad, um, intemperate; PM me if you want the link). And then I made an explanation video. And then I wrote-up a detailed explanation.

And now that it's appeared, changes have been made. The context is different. Admittedly, this particular idea is difficult to convey in print or even video, as it fits into a larger set. "Use your favorite method" has replaced my given method, which might make sense given space limitations. But still. Suggested subtleties go unmentioned. Incidental convincers have been replaced with patter like "please verify that..."

 

[Garrette]

Congratulations. I have never had a magic effect published (nor tried to since I don't develop them), though I have had some locaal semi-pros use my structure and patter.

Seeing your write-up altered, particularly in ways that you see as substantive must be somewhat upsetting, but unless the effect itself was changed, I would not advise dwelling on it. It's' a big deal: you're published.

So again, congratulations.

 

[Brown]

Congrats. Based upon the description of the trick, one explanation seems pretty obvious. Just have someone name a card, then surreptitiously tell Scotty to pick out the chosen card from a deck in his possession, and use the ship's transporter to beam the chosen card in between the two jokers.

Or, you could probably do it an easier way. My guess is that the words "Use your favorite method" offer a hint.

 

[Cain]

Thanks, guys.

What's bothersome about at least one of the changes is that he explained the theatrical premise (which can be changed, no problem), but never mentioned the "control" which is built into the presentation. In retrospect, these small things probably matter only to me.

 

[marplots]

I've been on both sides of this, author and editor. There's pain on both ends of the stick.

As an author, my interest was in leaving no stone unexplored, layering nuance on nuance. As an editor, I think of the canard, "speak to the slowest person in the room." Too many details lose the forest for the trees. Even so, I always thought that "use your favorite method" was shorthand for "I don't want to figure out all the crediting for a move."

There's a solution though. Let this child go on his merry way and start your next foray into the wild world of creativity. Accept that your idea will be modified, not just by a ham-handed editor, but by everyone who reads it -- some will screw it up royally, others will take it and create something even better than what you did. Take pride in participating in the craft in a way so few get to.

 

[Cain]

others will take it and create something even better than what you did.

Selfishly, that was my main reason for putting it out there. But without certain details, people may needlessly reinvent what's already been made.

 

[AdMan]

Congratulations, Cain. I have the March issue on my iPad so will take a look shortly.

Your experience reminded me of mine. Back many moons ago, I submitted a card trick to Genii magazine and it was published. They basically printed my write-up verbatim. It was a spelling trick that used a very specific stack, and of course they published it wrong (this was before computers were prevalent--I sent in a typed letter and they basically copied that). So I had to write them again and they published the correct sequence a month or two after. A little frustrating, but it was great to see my trick in the magazine, even if it couldn't really be performed as first described.

 

[Cain]

So, here's a live performance of the trick:

 

[Jim_MDP]

So, here's a live performance of the trick:

Heh...
"You should have picked the King."


And you should have had JREF on the monitor.

 

[AdMan]

So, here's a live performance of the trick:

Nicely done--I like it!

 

[Cain]

Thanks guys. Afterward, two of them said they'd already seen me do it before (argh). Often times, people grab the box, and, like with the Invisible Deck, ask "what would've happened if I chose a different card?" The guy who hadn't seen it previously was the one who wanted the king. So it goes...

 

[Senex]

I used to do a card trick I learned from the Magic Magazine. You show a closed card case that is completely ungimmicked (this is my own variation) and ask AN audience member to mentally select any card out of the deck. You show your hands empty and pull the selected card magically from the closed box in front of them. This effect relies on a subtle suggestion you plant in the spectator's mind and only works about 60% of the time so you need an immediate trick to go into that uses their selected card the 40% it doesn't work. Your trick is PERFECT. After you open the deck you can offer them the opportunity to see only jokers in the box and to change their mind to show that your knowing the card before you start has nothing to do with it.

If the first trick worked, even better. You go into yours because everyone that sees mine wants to see it again with a different card selected. Just tell them mentally select any other card and you put that card back into the closed deck. It's a perfect two trick routine and makes mine even better because you use the card case again and distract them from the limited ways I could do my trick.



I have plans to get back into magic this summer and I'm going to use your routine just as I explained. Thanks.

 

[Cain]

I forgot to mention that in June (of this year), Genii published a trick of mine. Unlike Magic Magazine, friggin' Richard Kaufman does not send complimentary copies to contributors.

Anyway, the trick is called "Karma Sandwich" and it was inspired by a Bernard Bilis routine that appeared in an early issue of Apocalypse. It's a great trick, but the 26 card setup made it difficult to integrate in a set, so I created an impromptu version. Andi Gladwin had the smart suggestion of changing up the order of the revelations. In his write-up he made other handling additions that I would not use, but they're eminently sensible.

Title: Karma Sandwich

Effect: A participant cuts a packet (approximately one-third) off the deck. Why did she cut off the exact number of cards she did? Maybe nobody knows, but we're sure it "happened for a reason." She spreads through the pack with the faces toward her until she finds a card to her liking, and this selection is fairly returned to the remainder of the deck.

A magic gesture and the performer spreads through the pack to reveal two cards have turned face-up, say a 10 and an 8. Neither is the selection. For a moment, this confounds the conjuror, but then he remembers the load of bullspit spouted earlier -- you know, "how everything happens for a reason." Making connections, he realizes the two face-up cards sum to 18. The spectator counts the number of cards in her packet -- 18 exact. But we still need to find the selection. The spectator squares up the spread with the face-up 10 and the 8. Another silly gesture or shadow cast, and the spectator can respread the cards showing a face-down card between the 10 and 8. This card proves to be the selection.

 

[Garrette]

Very nice.

 

[3point14]

I have a question:

When developing a trick, do you decide what effect you want then work out which methods to employ to achieve it? Or do you work out which methods can be strung together which then defines the effect?

 

[marplots]

I have a question:

When developing a trick, do you decide what effect you want then work out which methods to employ to achieve it? Or do you work out which methods can be strung together which then defines the effect?

Both. They interact.

Here's an effect by Morgan Strebler I thought had potential:


So I'm starting with "effect first."

I didn't much care for his method and invented my own. But, to get my method to "play," I had to then change the effect a little ("method first"). That, in turn, suggested a cleaner presentation if I altered the method a little bit (back to effect first).

So there's pushes in either direction.

 

[3point14]

Both. They interact.

Here's an effect by Morgan Strebler I thought had potential:


So I'm starting with "effect first."

I didn't much care for his method and invented my own. But, to get my method to "play," I had to then change the effect a little ("method first"). That, in turn, suggested a cleaner presentation if I altered the method a little bit (back to effect first).

So there's pushes in either direction.

Thanks

 

[Cain]

I have a question:

When developing a trick, do you decide what effect you want then work out which methods to employ to achieve it? Or do you work out which methods can be strung together which then defines the effect?

It goes both ways, but magicians I know generally agree that the best tricks started out as ideas for an effect. You know exactly what it's supposed to look like, then devise ways to achieve it. That's when you exercise your best creativity. If you work in the other direction then you essentially start with a hammer and then go out looking for nails. When I start with a cool move or method, I give up sooner because I've found something "good enough." However, when you have a vision for what you want to happen, the effect is always a work in progress.

I imagine it's the same in fiction. The best writing occurs when you've written your character into a corner and then must devise a way to get her out. If you already have a clever method of escape, then what you end up doing shoehorning your protagonist into a contrived set of circumstances custom engineered for your ready-made solution. The latter can work, but you have to be very good at covering your tracks.

ETA: Often times creating a trick is not about using a particular method, but saying no to other methods (e.g., "absolutely no stooges," or "the props be examinable before and after the routine"). These conditions force you to come up with alternative methods.

 

[3point14]

Thank you Mr Cain.