Tuesday, October 20, 2009

ConCamMonte


Proving just how many people continue to miss the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VORL8_fcq4

It's a pretty good example of the main ideas that I've been trying to get across all this time. The handling is just so painfully unnatural. I wont even mention the "too obvious theory." Will you fool people with it? I don't know, maybe they wont be able to work out the precise nature of the fake cards used.... If that's what you are striving for with your magic then knock yourself out. It's a puzzle.

It might be a little more acceptable if it was some kind of concept demonstration in the early stages of development. But we are told:

"This incredible routine has been part of Paul's professional repertoire for over twenty years. "

If the method forces you to handle the cards as badly as this, maybe there's a better method out there somewhere. Or maybe it's not the method, and you just don't understand what magic and sleight of hand are supposed to look like. You are only fooling yourselves. The picture says it all really.

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Strong Magic

Richard Kaufman says it's tripe. 

Although Mr Ortiz may not be my my favorite person in terms of what he tends to publish, and despite the fact that some other people I respect seem to slate Strong Magic, I have no hesitation in recommending it as one of the best reads in magic.

If you trust the mule, read Strong Magic!

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Gambit Magazine

If you haven't already read it, don't.

Although he does have a rant at Jerry Sadowitz (always welcome) regarding the "name a card triumph" that he allegedly pilfered. I haven't seen it so I can't give an informed opinion but, even from his own words, it does sound suspiciously like another micro-variation for the sake of publishing.

Anybody care to comment, what exactly did he contribute to the handling/effect?