To be honest having a full deck color change dampens the effect for me as an observer. I mean I just chose a card and it just so happens to be the only one that is red, yay me. Then if the magician does a full deck change into the same back as mine, I feel like, "oh yay I was special for a moment now my card is the same as the others, bummer." But that is just how I view this type of a routine, I love that I can still view effects like a laymen
.
You highlight my point, here, silver. As I explained, this is the case when all that is presented is the effect itself with no meaning. You illustrate this nicely with "I mean I just chose a card and it just so happens to be the only one that is red, yay me". There is no meaningful presentation, here. Were there an actual meaning to having one phase follow the other, then it could easily strengthen the routine.
To illustrate my point, here is a little routine that might work:
The magician introduces a deck of cards and explains how card cheats have often used marked decks as a way of cheating money out of their opponents, but as the knowledge of marked decks became more widespread, the cheaters had to devise more and more devious and clever ways of marking cards. This deck is a very special marked deck that the magician obtained from an ex-card-cheat. The magician demonstrates by having the spectator take a card, which he then shuffles back into the deck. He then explains that the card is sensitive to the touch, and so has now been marked by the spectator. The deck is spread "All it needed was that touch, and now the card has changed back colour." Through the presentation, you then aim to invoke a challenge from the spectator (Pit Hartling has a great essay on this in his book Card Fictions). Through the language you use, you make the spectator want to challenge that them touching the card really does change the colour. When they make this challenge, the deck is spread face up. You offer to let them touch more cards to see if it happens with them, also. It does. You then invite them to check the rest of the backs to make sure there's nothing funny going on. When they do so, all the backs have changed colour, because, of course, they have just touched them all.
In this routine, now that there is actually a reason for things happening, can you see that the initial phase is not undermined but is actually used to give meaning to and enhance the routine as a whole?
Dude your extrapolating by assuming he is implying that you disagree with his post. Irony I think so.
No, extrapolating is not the same as reasonably inferring something. He used the word "but" after saying he agreed with me. This implies that the text that follows disagrees. This is the English language. No irony here.
In other words he is plugging his ears to your opinion so might as well not give anymore advice to him but someone else.
I can hope that he doesn't plug his ears. Nevertheless, I made that post as much to help others who may be confused about my argument due to what he wrote.
Huruey did it ever occur to you that maybe your suggested routine just isn't strong enough? I believe Morgician was just trying to help Alfie out by pointing out what was wrong with your suggestion. Furthermore while doing so giving legitimate tips that other advanced (I hate using that word in this context) magicians need in order to routine better.
How could you or Morgician be able to make such a big judgement? You haven't seen it performed, nor have you performed it. I merely gave an outline. Clearly more thought is needed for it. I was trying to get Keokesilverfang started with an idea. Maybe it is a rubbish routine, I don't know, either. I haven't done it. I'm not trying to defend the routine. Morgician wasn't just pointing out what he thought was wrong with my suggestion, he was making unjustified statements about why it should not be done and why repeating doing similar effects should not be done in general.
I was not arguing for the routine I suggested. I am arguing against the general points Morgician was making regarding similar effects in succession. I did so because I believe it would be of benefit to both Morgician and others reading this thread to view his argument more critically, and should I be met with reasoned argument, also of benefit to myself so that I may learn, too. Is it possible that Morgician was wrong about his reasoning for the routine being bad? What if everybody reading suddenly just assumed he was correct? I believed otherwise, and so I made a case against Morgician's point. I was then met with a post that demonstrated a severe lack of understanding of my point and that still failed to make a decent case for his own argument, while at the same time making several comments to undermine my character.
I hope you can see that I too have been trying to help and learn alike. Should I not argue my point and be right, then others will go on being wrong. Should I not argue my point and be wrong, then I shall not learn myself. I can only hope for the other person to be in a similar position, where they not not only out to teach.
Joe
