Late night question of the night.

[Randy]

If one effect leads into another, is that two effects or simply just one. Take for example Jon Armstrong's My Opening Act, Where you you have a thought of card in your front jacket pocket and then the other revelation of having the "wrong" named card in your wallet the entire time. Would that be considered two entities or one.

Or would two effects simply be something a long the lines of things that don't connect with each other. IE, you do a card effect and then simply move onto something else like rubber bands or whatnot after that.

 

[TeeDee]

To my mind, an "effect" is a single magical occurrence, e.g. "The thought of card was in my front jacket pocket." I think of it like this. At the "moment of magic", whether it's indicated by a snap a gesture or a word, what happens at that moment is the effect. Two or more effects can be linked in the way you've described, and, I suppose then that would be a "trick" which contains multiple effects. Two or more tricks can be linked, to become a "routine". Of course, though, these are just semantics, and "effect", "trick", and "routine" are used almost interchangeably. As a student of philosophy, however, I like precision in the definition of words, so I'm glad someone else cares too!

 

[William Draven]

In your outlined example above with Armstrong (IMO) what you are seeing is a series of themed effects that have been routined together to make a set in magic. Yes, by themselves they are individual effects, but when put together like that they make for a more powerful presentation, building the experience by challenging the impossible with each new phase.

I believe routines can be more powerful when the chosen effects lend well to each other, and can segway seamlessly with minimal "and for my next trick" lines.

 

[RealityOne]

To call something an effect, I think it needs to be able to stand on its own both in terms of plot (it has to make sense by itself) and significance (it has to be impressive by itself). Take the vanish of a ball from your hand during a cups and balls routine, it is a magical moment, but the vanish really doesn't make sense outside the context of the routine (why make it vanish without making it reappear) and isn't significant enough to be performed by itself (is the audience going to applaud? probably not). The vanish as part of a routine would be a "phase" of the effect or routine. A kicker ending isn't a stand alone effect, but a phase in the routine.

Multiple effects in a routine will have a clearer beginning and end. Think about it terms of audience reaction. At the end of an effect, the audience will react - with applause or otherwise.

 

[TheatreHead]

I consider Armstrong's opening act two different effects.

Going off what R1 said, you can do the routine without the wallet ending, and it still plays well. You could do a named card to wallet without preceding it with anything, and it would still play well. He's just woven them together seamlessly and masterfully.

The line between multiple and singular effects starts getting fun in pieces like "Triumph", or multiple kicker and/or backfire effects.

For example I'd classify Triumph as two effects, even though I don't think most people do, since they don't play the moment that the cards straighten themselves out well enough. That can be an effect in itself, as Paul Harris and Jack Carpenter have shown, and the revelation of the selected card is an effect in itself, both of them are standalone effects, so by the previous definition, Triumph would be a routine consisting of two effects.

 

[Randy]

Now that I think about the Jon Armstrong thing it actually has like 4 things that link to together. He starts with an estimation effect, then goes into the thought of card type deal, which then leads into the final two thought of card effects. Granted if you've seen his DVD or lecture notes on the routine. He pretty much mentions that you wouldn't do the very first part for obvious reasons.

That is also something I've been trying to do. I'd rather not have things that have me say "For my next effect." and would rather that they just seamlessly blend into each other. Pretty much because I've seen too many people have 3 different things that don't blend into each other. Somebody does a card effect, then a coin effect and then a sponge/whatever effect. I'm trying to avoid that disconnect of the effects.

 

[TheatreHead]

Oh wow, I totally forgot about the first part without rubber banding the deck. I usually just go straight into the rubber band and wallet phase. I guess if the whole thing routine is considered, it'd be a repetition with different conditions and a kicker ending, which in this case constitutes separate effects. Repetition is a strange concept in terms of magic, as Jamy Ian Swiss mentions in his wonderful new book.

Actually, depending on you scripting, you can make three different things that seem completely unrelated blend together if you can thematically tie them together, whether through the premise of the effect, or whatever else. It's not too far of a stretch to see how a routine could start with an Open Travelers, then go into a 3 Fly, then go into a Sponge Ball routine. Fitzkee's Showmanship for Magicians explores this concept in some depth.

But yes, flow definitely something to be desired, and unfortunately somewhat lacking in a lot of amateur magician's routining.

 

[Randy]

Well the thought occured to me at like 12 am last night as I was looking at my script. I originally was going to do something like My Opening Act, 51 cards to pocket and then end with Card in Ring box (saw Michael Vincent do this on his youtube channel and thought I'd steal the idea.) But then I thought more about it and was like "I wouldn't be able to do the last half of the opener as well, because I'd constantly have to reload the deck every so often after each table."

I might also have to work on getting the 2nd part of the routine down without the rubber band though and trying that with an old deck is a bit annoying.

 

[formula]

For me the "effect" is the main focus or outcome of the trick/routine. Take an ambitious card routine ending in an impossible location like a Kennedy box, all of the individual rises are effects in their own right but they are supplementing THE effect, which is a signed, folded card appearing in a box.

 

[TheatreHead]

For me the "effect" is the main focus or outcome of the trick/routine. Take an ambitious card routine ending in an impossible location like a Kennedy box, all of the individual rises are effects in their own right but they are supplementing THE effect, which is a signed, folded card appearing in a box.

I'd call that the climax of the routine.

 

[Josh Burch]

I love watching Derren Brown because at the end of some of his live shows he takes you through and shows you how his whole show was related. It's almost like he is doing one contiuous effect the whole show. The beginning and end of each trick is unsure. That is the goal I would say.