The amount or tricks one should know?

[adjones]

Taken from Page XV of Royal Road to Card Magic:

Many years ago, David Devant, the great English conjurer, was approached by an acquaintance new to sleight-of-hand with cards. "Mr. Devant," said this young man, "I know three hundred tricks with cards. How many do you know?" Devant glanced at the youth quizzically. "I should say," the magician responded drily, "that I know about eight."

Devant was making a point with which all professional magicians are familiar. To perform card tricks entertainingly you must not only know how the tricks are done, but how to do them. There is a vast difference between the two, and if proof were needed, one need only watch the same feat performed by a novice and by an expert card conjurer. The novice knows the mechanics of so many tricks that he cannot do any one feat really well; the professional performs a smaller number of tricks which he knows how to present in such a way as to create the greatest possibly impression upon those who watch.

We cannot emphasize too strongly that knowing the secret of a trick is not the same as knowing how to perform that trick; and that knowing the secret of hundreds of tricks is of little value unless each can be performed smoothly and entertainingly. It is far better to know only a few tricks which can be performed with grace, skill, and effect.

In writing this book, we have attempted to teach you card tricks which may be performed anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances, for any company, and using any pack of cards. you will not need "trick" packs of cards, nor special cards, nor expensive accessories. This is most important, for it means that no matter were you may be, you need only borrow a deck of cards when called upon to entertain; the ability to amuse and interest will be literally at your finger tips.

To ensure that you will be a good card magician, we have introduced you to the mysteries of card magic progressively...

 

[praetoritevong]

Have to take into account each person though. This is what I was getting at at my previous post - this is great advice for beginners. For some intermediates, I'd consider it rubbish in one sense. It's correct in that you need to know how to do them as well as how tricks are done - this I completely agree with. Most of this point I agree with.

Specifically however the story about Devant can be misleading - to be a pro does not mean only knowing about eight tricks. Less does not necessarily mean more. A person who does 8 well is no better than one who can do 16 well. If he can perform more, with the ability as laid out above, there is no reason why you should not have more than 8, even many. The important point is to know them well - but 8 can be misleadingly interpreted.

 

[adjones]

Have to take into account each person though. This is what I was getting at at my previous post - this is great advice for beginners. For some intermediates, I'd consider it rubbish in one sense. It's correct in that you need to know how to do them as well as how tricks are done - this I completely agree with. Most of this point I agree with.

Specifically however the story about Devant can be misleading - to be a pro does not mean only knowing about eight tricks. Less does not necessarily mean more. A person who does 8 well is no better than one who can do 16 well. If he can perform more, with the ability as laid out above, there is no reason why you should not have more than 8, even many. The important point is to know them well - but 8 can be misleadingly interpreted.

I agree, but once you get past that beginner stage, you realize that you can know however many you feel like, as long as you perform them well. That was just directed towards all the beginners out there, to get the point across that more is not necessarily always better.

 

[praetoritevong]

Yeah, I absolutely agree there - conversely to my point, more does not necessarily mean better either.

 

[Morgan B]

I don't think the point of the story is quantity, perhaps some quality - but really, I think it is the concept that you can ALWAYS take one effect and make it better. That you could essentially take one effect and work on it and work on it to make it better over time...or at least to the point where you feel that you can't progress it anymore.

Take for example something like Triumph - that plot has been beaten to death - but that is because people are continually trying to alleviate the flaws that they feel exist in the effect. For example, Kostya must have felt it was important to actually shuffle the cards face up and face down and display them as such, while Vernon's classic handling allows for less movement with convincers.

I think by adding a large amount of TRICKS to your repertoire, you lessen the chance of perfecting the effects you are working on when dealing with all aspects of technique (presentational and physical). It becomes about the newest toy - rather than working on the toys you have.

That being said – I can see how it can be misleading – as the number is not the importance, but what you are doing with them and maintaining a standard. I always loved the concept that a magician can be judged, not by what he chooses to perform, but what he chooses NOT to perform and why?


That being said - if I had to put a MINIMUM on it - I would say 3 or 4...a start, middle, and ending...with an encore perhaps - but then I would say...magic is more like LAYS - I bet you just can't have one set!

 

[copperfield 14]

Thousands of tricks.