Main Page

A stack of mail came in this month, but a letter that impressed me muchly said, in part, "I want to save the Cups and Balls lessons by themselves, but find important matter on the backs of the pages, all of which ruins the rest of the issue. Couldn't you put something else, like Editrivia, on the other side of the series*" That, my readers, accounts for the displacement of this page, starting with this issue. Does anyone wish me to break off my arms and legs Just so they can bind the torsof

Even cartoonists take an occasional crack at us despite the fact that our own trade journals burn page after page writing that there is nothing wrong with magic. Lee Falk and Phil Davis, in their "Mandrake the Magician" comic strip recently portrayed "Manny" sitting in front of an agent in an effort to sell his services for a production. The booker's reply, (an a familiar one, tool) was "So you're a magician, huh? Well, X can't use youl — Listen, magicians are a dime a dosen. I've got all my acts signed up. My revue is going to be the biggest, the most lavish, etc." Naturally, it being a strip about Mandrake, a magician, he is 1 to 10 to come out on top, but the point is that outsiders, people who live on the publio pulse, recognise the fact that magicians (as a classification) can be bought cheaply and are not a worthy adjunct to a costly production. When a producer casts a show to-day,, and looks for a luminary to whom he ear marks from $2000 to #4000 per week in his budget, he doesn't look for a magician, not by a spavined longshot! He goes for an international comedian or reputat-ionalized movie star who has B.O. value with the public. Many magicians have'B.O. value, too, but it's the kind looked upon with askance by advertisers and not the kind that gives work to blonde box office ticketeers.

Verily, with which word the late Oscar Teale once flayed my senses, you can count on your two hands the number of present day magicians who are oapable of playing ONLY a part in the modern musical production. I want to be interpreted straight now, as I am not saying that a magic man could not possibly feature and carry a show. I'm a certain believer that it could be done, provided that the book were written by one of the recognised "light" writers of our day, and the play casted with an actor of recognised a-billty and B.O. appeal. Lionel Barrymore could do it. Muni could do it. Even Walter Bampden could do it, were the story to be written around a possible escapade in the life of Cagliostro. It's simply a question of a sound magically based story with a good actor, and not a bag full of tricks, one after the other without rhyme or reason, presented by someone who nails down oarpets during the day and doea "tricks" at night before 69 members of the Associated Group of Hereditary Heretics for from |3 to |8, considering himself a magician in the sense of the word. 999 out of 1000 of these same persons wouldn't spend the same amount of time on a single item in their program as does an acrobat learning a simple headstand, and I'll have to admit (even while in this mood) that acrobats average less in earnings than magi.

Only a man with space to waste should go into a tirade like that above. Magic, as an Art, has lived through many centuries. The past advocates have benefited, and undoubtedly those of the future will also. We of the present are in a transition. Magic of coming eras wilJ he of

Page 253

a different sort, with a different appeal. This decade does countenance a type of magician whose progeny will rise to the heights experienced by those from Houdin to Houdinl. Then, again, will he who is called "magician" rise to a degree worthy of his hire, rather than exist as a glorified amateur. One point missed by all la that there can be respected amateurs in every line but show business. When you start entertaining the public you are either of professional calibre or else you are just plain lousy.

Little Johnny Jones is well known to us. it's what he calls himself, and it's what he becomes to me, at least, with the current spread of two page exposures of SMALL tricks. One of these days, the Jinx will sponsor a poll, the greatest and most exhaustive ever known to the world of magic, and Just one of the various queries will be, "Did you ever divulge, in a medium placed before the public at large, the contents of whieh did not depend upon your contribution or a number of suoh, and which was devoted substantially, for acknowledged sales purposes, only to the general welfare of the human being physically, and what was current in world happenings of interest to the human being mentally, AN* DEVICE, OR METHOD 0? PROCEDURE WITH INTENT TO DECEIVE, WHICH YOU, YOURSELF, MIGHT OTHERWISE OR DID PREVIOUSLY PUT TO PROFITABLE USB IN THE FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT OR WONDERMENT, YOU TO RECEIVE PAYMENT IN CASH OR PUBLIC ACCLAIM?"

You, perhaps, can think of something that that doesn't cover. I can't. And the above la Just ONB of the simple questions in the polll

My vanity has been blown up a bit. last mo. I mentioned Mulholland's Story of Maglo as of Gimbel Bros. N.Y.C., at 49 centa. Then a treasured subscriber sent me a letter wherein Gimbel Bros, did say they couldn't supply it. I went over and asked for it. The keeper of the tomea told me they picked up ten ooples, didn't have one in stock, and would llketo know why in hell the rush was on. They never advertised the basement bargains (which are shopworns, pickups, and so and soes) but 19 mall orders had oome In for that book. Perhaps I should have started this paragraph, "John Mullholland's vanity should be blown up a bit."

The rabbit below represents the most subtle trick of the month. Half black and white, it can be placed on its side in a top hat, and with the black side outward, the topper can be shown apparently empty. Yet instantly, and with no fumbling of fakes or gimmicks, the rabbit may be produced, with, of course, the white side outl

Albert Guissart passed away recently. Only a few of the present day magi knew him, but I had the pleasure for about eleven years and appreciated him a lot. Mr. Guissart would have liked the Sphinx obituary, but he would have been much happier had it been mentioned about his S.A.M. affiliations . Around fifteen years ago his heart was cracked when he and Clinton Burgess were expelled from the S.A.M. only because Houdinl didn't like a letter Burgess had written about Houdini in connection with the book "Elliott's Last Legacy" and which let-__ ter Guissart only translated to French. ( VBH Mind you, there was no exposing. Just \ \D|V a letter...But -BOOMt Moral: Expose if you wish - but don't criticise!



(continued from page 248)

3. To Produce a Ball from the Wand---Under cover of calling attention to his wand and speaking of its powers of production, absorption, etc., the performer necures a ball from the pochette, and palms it by the second method: or the ball may be obtained from a pin point under coat lapel, from a wire clip just inside the lower edge of coat, or It may be taken from the collar in the act of easing the latter - a very natural action. Well, having palmed the ball, he holds the wand by one end in the left hand In such a manner that the hand can be seen to be otherwise empty. He then draws the wand through the right hand when, Just as the free end die-appears into the hand, the thumb rolls the balls to the finger tips, the effect being that it is actually squeezed out of the wand. (See "H" in the Pig.)

4. To Return a Ball into the Wand —- This is, of course, the converse of the movement last described above. The wand is held in the left hand as before, the ball being shown at the finger tips of the right hand. The free end of the wand is then laid lightly on the finger tips of the right hand (in front of the ball) which is then drawn slowly down the wand until it reaches the left hand, by which time the ball will have been palmed by the first method, Hie right hand may be removed at this point, or it may take the lower end of the wand and tilt the opposite end over into the left hand, Itself being then withdrawn from the free end.

5. To Secretly Introduce a Ball under a Cup -— This is always done in the act of raising the cup with the hand in which the ball is "palmed," presumably to show there is nothing under it;

or other pretext. Some perforaers palm with equal facility with either hand, but while the ability to do this may add somewhat to the confusion of a fellow conjuror, it is scarcely necessary in the ordinary way. We shall, therefore, suppose the ball to be palmed in the right hand unless otherwise stated. The right hand then held almost flat upon the table, grasps the oup by the rim, as low down as possible, between the thumb and lower joint of the forefinger. The cup is then raised, its position in the hand as shown at "P" in the Pig., the lower edge being just over the ball, presuming, of course, that the ball be palmed by the first method; it Is then and forthwith replaced on the table, when a slight movement of the fingers will be found to dislodge the ball which falls under it unper-celved. Needless to say, the left hand should, when necessary, raise and replace a cup at one and the same time, handling it in precisely the same manner as the right hand.

If the ball be palmed by the third method the operation, as experiment will show, becomes even more simple.

If the ball be palmed by the second method., the third and fourth fingers may readily transfer it from the palm proper to position "B" (third method) when the operation becomes equally simple. The ball, however, may be Jerked from the palm proper upwards and tinder the cup, which is then and forthwith replaced on the table with the ball under it. This is the method employed by the Indian conjurors, whose wooden cups are lifted by a knob on the top, grasped between the tips of the first and second fin- . gers, and which will be covered completely further on in these lessons.

There Is still another method of secretly inserting a ball under a cup from the palm of the hand. In the act of picking up a cup in each hand, say "B" in the left hand and "C" in the right, both are allowed to tilt forward, momentarily, but long enough to admit of the ball being dropped from the palm of the right hand into the cup, when both are replaced on the table. "A" and "B" should then be raised and replaced, being handled in precisely the same manner. If this method be employed at close quarters, the cups should be lined with felt to deaden the sound of the ball falling therein.

To secretly introduce a ball between two cups -The operation is practically the same as when introducing a ball beneath a cup on the table, the only addition being a little upward jerk (rather difficult to describe but readily acquired) whereby the ball is thrown upwards into the cup that it may, in falling, come to rest on the conoave top of the lowermost one. The position of the ball between the cups is shown at "0" in the Pig. The first or third methods

of palming should be employed for this operation.

6. To Simulate the Action of Placing a Ball under a Cup --- The ball is at the outset conjured away, i.e.,made to disappear by palming. Thla sleight is of the greatest Importance and must be well executed, it being Imperative the spectators be satisfied the ball is actually under the oup. There are two methods of forcing this conclusion. (1) The ball is first shown at the finger tips of the right hand, when then seams to transfer it to the left, the fingers of which (apparently) close upon It. It is, of course, palmed in the right hand which at onoe raises the oup sufficiently for the fingers of the left hand to be placed beneath it. The edge of the cup is then drawn over the fingers and down on to the table, the action apparently scooping the ball under the cup. The left hand is then oasually shown to be empty. (2) In this case the ball is (apparently) passed direct from the right hand under the cup. It is first shown at the finger tips. The left hand then raises the cup while the right hand seems to place the ball under it, the oup seeming to scoop the ball off the fingers as before. The ball is really palmed by the first or third methods as when returning It to the wand (sleight 4).

(To be continued)

(continued, from page 251) WRITE, UNDER THE ORIGINAL FIGURES PUT DOWN BY THE SPECTATORS, THE TOTAL OP THE PAKE ADDITION, BY MEANS OP THE THUMB WRITER1! You have ample time for the writing of only five figures as you will find out on your first trial.

Now, as an afterthought, go back to the spectators and have them check off their own rows, each one calling the total, too. They have no time to add, and, after all, they are mainly interested only in their individual row of figures. The climax is then up to you. But watch the face of someone whom you know is conversant with the old wayt



While this trick is not wholly original, the method of handling makes it a self contained mystery, and does away with the older way of dealing the cards into table piles, a procedure that is quite boring and mechanical appearing.

Prom any deck the performer deals 20 cards and the Joker. While a spectator shuffles the 20, performer runs through rest of deck and removes two cards which he places face down in front of, or representing two of his watchers. He now hands the Joker to spectator who Inserts it anywhere In his packet. The spectator is told to fan through the pack and note the card In back of, or to the left of the Joker. He closes the cards and hands them to second spectator who fans through and notes the card in front, or to the right of the Joker. He closes cards and cuts them a time or two.

Taking the bunch, performer holds them with faoes towards first person and says he will run through, putting one up and one down, spectator noting whether or not his card goes in the up bunch or the down bunch. Cards are held In left hand backs to performer. Right hand takes first card from back, calling it up. Second card is now taken in front of first card, but down about half way. The next card goes in front also but is an up card and thus squares with the first. The fourth card is down, squaring with the 2nd. Continue this for the packet, and at finish, just pull out the bottom enterlacing bunch and drop them on top of the face down upper group. Regardless of whether spectator sees his card or not, or where, that part is Just a blind. Now repeat the same thing with second person. This 1-dea does away with all dealing on a table.

At the finish of second time through, fan the deck face to someone and have him remove the Joker from wherever It is. All through the effect you emphasize that you never see the faces of the oards. When the Joker is taken out, cut the deck at that very spot. Count the top ten oards off (don't disarrange them) saying you will divide the packet In half, and put them face down for the first person. Put the remaining ten in front of second person. Now state that before any selecting was done you placed two single cards face down for each and they are supposed to be a prophecy of where selected cards can be found. Turn over the first. It is a 5 spot. Op-

Page enly count down in first man's packet and bold fifth card. He names his, and it Is correct. Turn over the second man's prophecy. It is a 6 spot. Count down and hold the sixth card In packet. It is correct.

You should like this feat because it's clean and neat, working automatically. Just put down a 5 and 6 for the two prophecies. Pollow through as described, and everything is bound to work.


ozviLLE mvm

A Living and Dead test should concentrate upon the wallop of the effect rather than the method. This is Impromptu, and while the presentation idea involved belongs to Eddie Clever, the method of handling and using billets instead of envelopes and cards is mine. In this form the billets can be torn out of borrowed paper without preparation or notice.

Use 5 or six billets about 2x3 inches. These are folded three times, or to a manipulation size. One is secretly dotted on the outside, or given an extra bend or kink. The slips are passed out, and the person getting the marked one Is asked to write a dead name. The others write living names. Writers refold and drop into a hat, the collecting being done by a spectator.

The performer picks out a slip, making sure it isn't the dead one, and announces it as a living name. He opens to verify, nods, refolds and gives to man who collected slipa. As an afterthought he has this man read name on slip a-Xoud so writer can claim it. Now reach in and take dead slip, finger palming a live one. Slip is held to forehead and you announce it to be another LIVE one. Open for verification as before, READ THE DEAD NAME, nod, refold, switch slips in handing to assistant, and he reads the LIVE name and It is claimed by owner.

Take out third slip, dropping DEAD name back in hat. Repeat same procedure with this live slip. You have accustomed audience to your way of handling papers, and twice, first and third times, your hands are actually empty. For fourth time take out DEAD name. Build, this up. Announce it to be dead name and ask for owner. Return paper to him and ask him to keep it closed. Then reveal the name, letter for letter. Everything can be examined and returned to owners, which is a point too many tricks cannot boast about.

0 0

Post a comment