In practical physics it is an accepted fact that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Why should this be any different in Magic? The accepted reasoning why this occurs is that it has too, whilst this is true because we are not doing it for real. However I believe that the secret to performing real magic is elimate as much of these way points as possible. In this discussion I will use an effect that I see as being the closest to real magic that we have all performed (or atleast know how to) the classic two card transposition using a duplicate card, also doing it impromptu using three double lifts as found in Expert Card Technique under the title, Invisible Transit. I will also talk about slight variations on these effects aswell however the primary concern is just this effect.
Using the standard duplicate method the effect appears exactly as it should, you show two cards deal them seperatly and they switch places. Very clean, very powerful in effect but even so it is missing something. The thing that it is missing is the moment that the effect is occurs. Ultimately for it to be 'real magic' the cards are the same ones you showed until you cause them to change, a snap a wave putting them in your mouth something has to happen for the cards to switch places. So when we take a closer look at what happens there are three distinct moments for the audience; dealing the two cards, the magic action, and the result in this case the cards changing place. In this example you everything you needed to do because the audience saw only three motions on your part (well they should have) you showing and dealing the first card, you showing and dealing the second card and finally the magical gesture. Everything is natural everything is motivated and for the most part everything makes sense.
Conversly if we use the invisible transit method. The first two phases and dealing procedures are normal however, to reveal the cards are changed you need to take the first card (actually an x-card) and go near the deck again (in ECT it suggests a double lift personally I use a top change), this makes no sense. Whislt there is plent of natural misdirection when you show te second card has swapped places with the first you still need to do something to show that the first has done swapped with the second. Personally that is why I perfer the top change because it can be done on the off beat and the audience is more likely to not remeber that you went back to the deck. Do not get me wrong this is still an effective method however it is not as effective as using the dupe because there needs to be one more action to complete the effect. Both of these methods are great for accomplising the effect the real problem is if you were to use the method in Erdanse that reqires a series of top changes bottom changes and palm changes.
This bring up a point of what the audience sees and does not see, while the audience sees you turn over two cards and deal them make a magical gesture and they change places there is usually a different reality that we see. It may be a simple difference like turning over two cards instead of one or it can be something as complex as the Erdanse method for the two card transpo. However in the first example the magical getsure was a wave and the audience had to take our word that that is when the cards changed places, what if we changed the moment. Hypothetically we have done the first double as per normal but on the second one instead of turning the card over and dealing it we do a cardini or ego change? Do we add any movements to the effect? In our reality we do (doing the colour change) but in the eyes of the audience we do not the cards are dealt as per normal this time when we do the wave or click or what have you the audience can see that is the actual moment the cards swap places.
By doing the above variation yes the method becomes more difficult however it does add something for the audience. Truth be told you should not perform anything if it is less than perfect in your hands anyway so yu should not get caught performing the change. And the most important point is that above variation looks natural. The point I am trying to make is the method (on your end) should look exactly the same if you get someone to replicate it who does not know about magic methods. Obviously there is going to be some changes to accomplish the effect but ont the whole they should appear to be the same.
On a related note gimmicks usually help achieve this but it is nice to have a back up impromptu method as well as a slightly set up method so that you can always be prepaired to perform something as close to the perfection in method, presentation and with the most logical flow as you can.
Using the standard duplicate method the effect appears exactly as it should, you show two cards deal them seperatly and they switch places. Very clean, very powerful in effect but even so it is missing something. The thing that it is missing is the moment that the effect is occurs. Ultimately for it to be 'real magic' the cards are the same ones you showed until you cause them to change, a snap a wave putting them in your mouth something has to happen for the cards to switch places. So when we take a closer look at what happens there are three distinct moments for the audience; dealing the two cards, the magic action, and the result in this case the cards changing place. In this example you everything you needed to do because the audience saw only three motions on your part (well they should have) you showing and dealing the first card, you showing and dealing the second card and finally the magical gesture. Everything is natural everything is motivated and for the most part everything makes sense.
Conversly if we use the invisible transit method. The first two phases and dealing procedures are normal however, to reveal the cards are changed you need to take the first card (actually an x-card) and go near the deck again (in ECT it suggests a double lift personally I use a top change), this makes no sense. Whislt there is plent of natural misdirection when you show te second card has swapped places with the first you still need to do something to show that the first has done swapped with the second. Personally that is why I perfer the top change because it can be done on the off beat and the audience is more likely to not remeber that you went back to the deck. Do not get me wrong this is still an effective method however it is not as effective as using the dupe because there needs to be one more action to complete the effect. Both of these methods are great for accomplising the effect the real problem is if you were to use the method in Erdanse that reqires a series of top changes bottom changes and palm changes.
This bring up a point of what the audience sees and does not see, while the audience sees you turn over two cards and deal them make a magical gesture and they change places there is usually a different reality that we see. It may be a simple difference like turning over two cards instead of one or it can be something as complex as the Erdanse method for the two card transpo. However in the first example the magical getsure was a wave and the audience had to take our word that that is when the cards changed places, what if we changed the moment. Hypothetically we have done the first double as per normal but on the second one instead of turning the card over and dealing it we do a cardini or ego change? Do we add any movements to the effect? In our reality we do (doing the colour change) but in the eyes of the audience we do not the cards are dealt as per normal this time when we do the wave or click or what have you the audience can see that is the actual moment the cards swap places.
By doing the above variation yes the method becomes more difficult however it does add something for the audience. Truth be told you should not perform anything if it is less than perfect in your hands anyway so yu should not get caught performing the change. And the most important point is that above variation looks natural. The point I am trying to make is the method (on your end) should look exactly the same if you get someone to replicate it who does not know about magic methods. Obviously there is going to be some changes to accomplish the effect but ont the whole they should appear to be the same.
On a related note gimmicks usually help achieve this but it is nice to have a back up impromptu method as well as a slightly set up method so that you can always be prepaired to perform something as close to the perfection in method, presentation and with the most logical flow as you can.