Tore up, from the floor up!

[Morgan B]

Few things are more visually appealing and magical looking than a piece by piece torn and restored card. In this essay, I will be discussing the torn and restored card investigating the convincers omitted or included because of method. There is a plethora of material on the internet, books and DVD’s – and it is our job to look through it and find what works best – it would make our job easier , if only improved variations were published, Ortiz talks about reasons in “Designing Miracles” moreover, in his book “Scams and Fantasies” the concept of reasons to publish is touched on – I am paraphrasing from the latter, but it was something along the lines that – magic should only be published if something progresses any aspect of the effect. This doesn’t exactly convey my belief, as I feel that bad ideas can lead to good ones, if even by a process of elimination. Perhaps this concept is better for those magic hobbyists that don’t apply a critical analysis on the method or effect construction before choosing it. There is a concern that one may choose a method over the other for the wrong reason (i.e. It looks cool, it is easy, etc). Over the past years, there have been many attempts to “perfect” and “progress” the plot of the torn and restored card; however, many have fell short of improving the effect. What is even worse is that the changes have often added multiple weaknesses that reduce the claims and increase the burden of proof necessary for the effect to have an impact. I would like to discuss some key aspects that I believe are necessary to add barriers, create convincers and strengthen the effect overall.

First - The effect:

A playing card is selected and signed – the card is torn into four distinct pieces and put back together piece by piece until the card is restored.

Every method does this very thing – so where do the differences exist? They exist in the evidence & proof provided by the method. Here are the things I feel make the effect more convincing:

The face is signed:

Often I see the back of a card signed…I find methods like these are poor, as it mocks the reason for a card to be selected in the first place. A duplicate may be one of the most common “outs” that people think of to explain the effect they see, and a back out torn and restored card may lead them to the exact method – “hmm, what if he had a duplicate…where would he get that…oh the deck provides 51 duplicates of the backs… perhaps he didn’t rip my card up at all – as I didn’t see the face while it was ripped”. If they propose the same question when the face is seen for the duration of the effect, the barrier is then: if that is true…how did he know what card I would select, also, how would he get a duplicate of my signature? Having a card selected, and not displaying the face may be illogical – I think back out methods are better for objects where you wouldn’t want to use the face and the face was inconsequential as a convincer, like a standard business card, for example.

The card can be examined at the (beginning and) end:

Although I don’t believe it extremely necessary to have the card examined at the beginning, they do have to sign it as it provides proof it is not a duplicate, so as long as you can have it signed, then really – the card only has to be examined at the end. However, often because it has to be signed, it is examinable at the start as well. If the method is strong, then at the climax the card begs to be examined – and many magicians will attest that they know their audiences are convinced if they examine the restored card…if they cast it aside, then the magician should realize that they might have flashed or the method wasn’t strong enough to back up the claim. The audience is looking for a solution – perhaps tape, glue…any explanation. So, allowing them to examine it is as important as showing your hands empty after doing a bill change; the effect doesn’t 100% register until this occurs. This is why methods that do use tape, glue or some variation of this are often dismissed by audiences, as it leaves them unfulfilled – because they don’t get to examine the card. The same mental outs are used when someone is watching stage magic (smoke, trap doors and mirrors) start to overlap in the world of close up (glue, adhesive and tape) – and we lose our advantage of being up close and tangible, for a lack of better words.

The audience sees each and every piece go back to together:

This point addresses all the pieces, but especially the last piece. Ortiz says, and I agree, the better you are the closer they will watch. If you do a very visual restoration, like in DG’s Torn, but then you do what has been coined the “take and fake” for the last piece, where you pretend to have the last piece behind your big fat meaty hook of a hand - then it is my belief that you have muddled up the part the audience is watching the closest, as well as what would be the most difficult restoration (2 edges vs the 1 before) and most impressive. It would be like sawing a ladies arms, legs and head off…then put the arms and legs back on visually, and then held up a curtain to put her head back on. To perform two phases that are so clean and nice looking, to visually dismiss and cover up the last one with no reason really reduces the claim of the first two restorations. Many spectators can believe you can rip a card in a way to not really rip it…and keep a few pieces attached, but that last piece…that seals it – so why do we accept variations that don’t allow for the last piece to be shown cleanly?

Are you willing to sacrifice the entire effect, for the strength of a single sequence?

Here is an example of something that I feel breaks all the rules…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSYpiMJHb4Y&feature=related

Although the first two restorations are great – it breaks every convincer that is listed, sorry DG.

Here is an example of one that uses all the convincers and is considered, for nearly a decade, has been considered the pinnacle of torn and restored card (sorry about the voice over).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSdfHXir11Q&feature=related

In my opinion, although many strong sequences have been discovered, nothing has advanced this version while keeping all its strengths intact, since Guy Hollingsworth’s Reformation.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Rmana]

just a question, was this essay done for fun? For a website? For school?

As far as your points are concerned, you persuade your reader to believe in them, though aren't exactly true. If a card is signed on the back, regardless of the number of other same backed cards there are, the signature makes the card one of a kind. And the thoughts you put on a laymen are a bit over thought. They appear to be the thoughts and positions a magician may make and not what a laymen would think.

Also, DG's "Torn" allows the card to examined both at the beginning and ending of the performance. Yes, your hands aren't completely clean, but the card itself is. A part of magic is misdirection, and you use it to clean your hands.

And finally, while it may be more impressive to visually see the last piece restored, it is the magicians job to make the spectator believe that something has occurred, even if it actually didn't. Garcia does a number of convincers to create the illusion that the last piece is there and restored, making the spectator believe in it as well.

Personally, I am a bigger fan of Reformation and think it is the best TnR effect I've seen (Maybe Glenn West's Seamless is just as good as well), but I was just trying to dissect your argument in case you wanted to work at it a bit more. I have my BA in English and haven't had to look at anything in-depth since graduating so I thought I'd look at your essay.

With that said, well-written.

 

[adjones]

Very well written essay, and I enjoyed reading it! Good job!

 

[Morgan B]

Rmana - thanks for taking the time to read my essay. I like writing and have been working on a book - this was just a cast away idea I had, and wanted to write about...so I guess you could say, for fun.

I do agree with your point about the signature on the back to a certain extent, but still feel the face of the card is very important as a convincer for the same points I argued - moreover, I understand you think that my thoughts are "over thought", but as an English major I know you will understand this analogy. You write to your audience. I think in magic, you try to fool your audience...but not the easy ones, the hardest one.

This is how you become "perfect" in creating a magic experience, similar to Tamariz approach for example. We look for flaws before they are found, and out think even the most astute observer. I think my points come from having very high standards of what I will allow to be shown, but my points come from not just opinion but from practical performance experience, so they have been validated. Nevertheless, I appreciate you acknowledging my points, as much as your points, which are valid opinions Rmana.

On that note, I am sorry, but I disagree (for now) that Torn has any convincers after the card is ripped, to prove it’s the same card in use – the face doesn’t come into play until the end. On that note, would you mind sharing what you believe the convincer’s are on the last piece? Perhaps I am missing something? POINT OF CONCERN - the original post was not meant to BASH Torn, as there are many other Torn and Restored plots that are much worse. I just used DG's as an example of some of the things that I don't love, but there are some things I like.

I am glad you brought up Glenn, as Glenn West is a good friend of mine, and Seamless is a great piece of magic, although I am not sure it is as angle efficient as Reformation, it does maintain all the strengths and may be more direct in some ways – as he does make use of the face being signed, even though the restorations happen back out, he still plays by the aforementioned “rules”. Nevertheless, I still believe, like you do, it is a close second to Reformation…for now, and that is a great place to be.

Again, I am flattered that you would spend time looking at my essay. Look forward to your thoughts and perhaps further dissection.

Adjones – Sincerely, thank you.

 

[Rmana]

I hope you don't think I was bashing your writing or anything like that as I enjoyed it quite a lot and would agree with most of it. I just think you could maybe a elaborate a bit more on certain parts to strengthen your argument.

Actually... this is just my opinion, but in writing, you shouldn't write for the hardest ones to please. It's harder to write a book for people who are "learned" because so many of them feel like they know it all. But I see your point, actually. I just won a copy of Glenn West's Forgery actually, and even though it doesn't work on my DVD player, the trick seems to baffle other magicians... I guess what you're saying is that when you perform something "unique" it's sort of your job to make the smart people feel dumb? If that makes sense... I guess it's very rare that a magician really gets confused and feels like it's real anymore, ya know?

I was mainly talking about the last restoration on Torn. After the first piece is right there and the second piece is restored, the third piece doesn't actually get seen visually, but through his performance (and when performed correctly) he makes it seem as if the piece is there. That is the convincer I'm speaking of. He has these little subtleties that make you think the piece is there.

Reformation does look really good, but there's something about Seamless that just floors me. The lack of bends in the card is just really unique to me. But watching a different performance of Reformantion on youtube, I recall Guy being completely surrounded which is really quite impressive.

Again, very well-written piece. I'm about to start teacher's college so picking away at essays is something I'm working on, and would honestly give your work around a 90%...

 

[Glenn West]

Actually, Seamless is done face OUT, Well, actually, it doesn't matter really from a method stand point. But any how . . .

I completely agree about the "bluff" used in many for the last piece. In fact, the sad thing about BD's Torn is that you CAN bring out the last piece if you want, and make it more visual. You are not backed into a corner by the method.

But NO amount of convincers will beat ACTUALLY seeing the impossible visually happen with your own two eyes like with the first piece.

Think of it like a stripper. Torn is like a stripper coming out and ripping everything off all at once, and then putting her panties back on, dancing a bit, then her top back on, dancing a bit, and then throwing a blanket over her self for a final number.

It is about building UP to something, not coming back down from something.

And, by the way, even Hollingworth's suffers from this problem with the last piece as it requires more cover, and is slightly more cumbersome than the previous pieces.

Hell, even SEAMLESS has the same problem. Although the last piece in Seamless, I'm often told by magicians, is what they just can't figure out, it is the least visual of them all.

 

[Glenn West]

Ok, TECHNICALLY, for anyone who's seen me perform it in person recently, which, really, I think only one magician has, I do Seamless starting back out, with my CURRENT performance of it, but, I used to do it all, and always, face out.

Wait, never mind, I just remembered, I started always doing back out, lol. My bad, but the youtube video is face out, and that was the way I usually did it. Just ignore me now.

 

[Rmana]

ahahaha... kind of weird to be talking about you on the forum and then you "magically" appear in the discussion. And I was just talking to Phil at Kind of Magic about Seamless the other day as well.

I think you are right in what you say about the last piece... both of you. I've been thinking that ever since I saw Torn for the first time, but I've been doing the trick for awhile and have never been called on the last piece which is why I appreciate the way Garcia sells the idea that there is a piece in their. But there is something to be said about seeing the pieces always being there, and something I really love about other Torn and Restored tricks that Torn does not do is the idea of putting the pieces in your mouth instead of your pocket. I really like the idea of the pieces always being there.

 

[Chr!s]

lovely essay, well written and with some very valid points.
in my humble opinion, i disagree that piece by piece restorations are any more magical than a more traditional t&r, but thats just my opinion. i just think that a all-at-once fusion of the pieces is more mysterious, and perhaps more magical. not as visual, but still... also, i find the way most piece by piece restorations are performed always seem to ceremonial for my tastes, all very choreographed. this is all just my opinion, before i get any arguments!

C!

 

[Morgan B]

Rmana – didn’t think you were being hard at all – my response was twofold: for clarification on what was written and your response – thanks for taking the time to clarify – and for the A grade, as it would be my first, haha.

Glenn –Glad you chimed in. I know the last piece needs cover – and I am a believer that visually grabs their attention, and implied magic fools them using their imagination – so an implied ending that requires cover is fine…it is the meat hook with nothing in it that bothers me. It looks fishy. Reformation and Seamless don’t have that problem, as both show that last piece exists. Rmana brought up a good point too that I talk about below – and I think this increases the importance of being able to show the last piece.

To the latter Rmana post – I really agree with the pieces always being in sight for multiple reasons. Glad you brought that up. If it goes to your pocket…and you do the fake and take…logic dictates it may still be in your pocket. Imagine pretending to take a coin, never showing it, then saying it vanished – no result would be garnered. Anyhow, as you agree – I am beating a dead horse…then perhaps humping it like Tom Green a moose – but it’s out there, as am I.

Hi Chris, thanks for joining the conversation. I don’t disagree with you on a few points. I do think an all at once T n’ R is great – but that was not the direction I focused this on, but I do think effects like T n’ R transpo are very strong – just a different effect/motivation. Moreover, I do agree with the ceremonial style of procedure underlining the T n’ R card – and would love to discuss that further.

Thanks guys.

 

[RichmanMatthew]

There is an extremely nice TnR trick in the media section.

 

[Chr!s]

what a lovely response!

hi, morgician, i appreciate your reply.
the ceremonial nature in the performance of piece by piece restorations... i have been thinking about this for a long time. guy hollingworths reformation was one of the first card effects i fell in love with, about 9 years ago. even then though, after learning various 'all at once' restorations within the T&R plot, i could see that the formality of a piece by piece restoration could only suit certain performing scenario's. i then came across yves domergues T&R and that really changed my opinion on the piece by piece, as it just looked so beautiful, and clean. then TORN came along. it fooled me, badly. and it was basically just an improved version of domergues effect. i purchased and learned it at the earliest instant. it was perfect, flawless. a signature visible at all times. god, it was amazing. but i became tired of performing it. the choreography, the twisting of the card into position, everything, it didn't inspire me, and i came to dislike performing it. worse than that, when i really analysed it, i begun to think that, as you restore each piece, you are telegraphing the next movement (or move) more and more. i have learned mathieu bich's T&R but have not yet constructed the gimmick or performed it., so i cannot comment on the handling on a personal level. i still adore the T&R plot, and perform three or four handlings, but all of them are 'all at once' restorations. and the only thing i can say is, i get better reactions from these effects and i enjoy performing them.

C!

 

[Glenn West]

I agree that a flash restoration has a more confined and concise impact.

The piece at a time (paat) T&R's face a huge obstacle with this regards as only the first piece really comes as a shock. After that, they know what is going to happen. Each subsequent one must be more impossible than the previous.

Since the plot becomes all laid out for the spectator after the first piece, you will never be able to top the impact of said piece, unless, you take away from the first piece. That is, make the first piece the one with the most cover, so they are left to their imagination, then, bit by bit, you show them more and more.

It is a lot like an ambitious card plot. If you clearly show a signed card go into the center, and without a doubt show the face of it as it goes in, and let them push it in, and then have it visually reappear on top for the first phase, where can you go after that?

With most paat T&R's, they would be like next doing a tilt, so you can still show the face, but they can't see where it goes in. Then for your finally, you do a double, then do NOT show the face of the card going in the center, and then just turn over the top card for the reveal.

With final pieces handled like in Torn, it would be like completely faking the taking of the top card for the last phase, just pretending to hold a card in your hand, trying to imply that it is just hidden behind your fingers as you insert it into the middle, and then reveal on top.

Now, look at an Ambitious card routine like Tommy Wonder's, or Daryll's. Each phase is played as more impossible than the previous, and more visual, until it is made undeniably impossible for anything to happen, and yet, it still does in one final miraculously climax. Break out a smoke, collapse into your audiences loving arms, and you're finished.

Now show me a paat T&R like THAT, lol.

Any hwo, back to the flash restorations, my favorite is Rodney Reye's Shed a Tear. Pure visually stunning magic.

 

[Morgan B]

Chr!s - thank you - to reply to your reply, just for the sake of conversation - you bring up some good points, but to stay focused on the piece by piece restoration plot, I have done it for years with great success, but I have had to work hard on presentations that allow for each phase and give reason to the "hand dance" (for a lack of better words) as the "hand choreography comes into play. I am just glad you brought that concept up, but it exists in all work...linking rings, coin work, manip and so on - the concept is to make skill look unrehearsed.

Glen - I see what you are saying, and don't disagree completely, nevertheless, you make an assumption that visual is stronger than implied. You named some good ambitious examples, but Kurtz has a great routine out of "Leading with your Head" that becomes more and more implied. In short, I think the routine can be structure both ways with success.

I agree that after the first phase, they see the picture, but it becomes more and more impossible - and I think we are breaking it down in phases, but lay people don't - the effect begins when the first piece is put back on, but ends with the final piece...I don't think they see it one phase to the third phase...at least not consciously. If you showed a flash restoration, and a piece by piece restoration to two groups, I wonder if they would describe it the same. Which would be more impressive? I would hypothesize the latter.
Anyhow, let’s not start comparing ambitious to T n’ R, because I think Copperfield’s flying illusion trumps any ambitious card! Haha

 

[Rmana]

i never really put the the rising action of a TnR and an ambitious card side by side before. I think there is something to say about the last piece in a piece by piece that is a bit more miraculous and that creates a bit of shine to the performance. Guy usually says that the last piece is twice as hard as he has to join two edges... which in some ways makes it appear harder, but not really...

I guess with any piece by piece it is falling action after the first restoration... But with Bich's and Seamless, there is a bit of a twist at the end as the card changes or not creased.

This thread is making me not like Torn as much... ahahaha. I still like it, but it makes me wonder how to improve on it. Anyways... it's nice to have actual discussion on here instead of people just putting down Elusionist. ahahaha.

 

[Glenn West]

Ellusionist TEH SUCKZ!!111!1!!11!

 

[Chr!s]

i have nothing to add, my friend, that was a very nice reply, and i like your concept of 'the hand dance', though it sounds almost dirty, haha.

so i understand, that a level of choreography is present in alot of work, coins included, but i think other area's provide alot more room for variation and finesse. anyway, i know that this isn't the point of the thread, so i think i'll sign out now, but, as was mentioned erlier, it's been lovely having some actual converstaion as opposed to sniping and "i'm better than you" mentalities! refreshing, is the word.

C!

 

[Huruey]

I think this essay based around a flawed logic.

In my opinion, although many strong sequences have been discovered, nothing has advanced this version while keeping all its strengths intact, since Guy Hollingsworth’s Reformation.

Your definition of improving an effect seems to be that aspects of it are advanced without losing any of the strengths of it's predecessors. If this were true, people would still travel around by horse, after all, cars aren't nearly as environmentally friendly, nor can they get you over fences.

In reality, there is a lot more to consider than what you seem to have implied in your essay. Counting convincers doesn't really cut it. Compare two fictional effects, one of which is a T&R which happens with a signed card, it happens piece by piece, all the corners are shown before being restored, the card is tugged after each restoration to prove it's been restored. Following your simple idea of assessing the effect "critically", you might say this is a very powerful effect. However, compare it to a second fictional effect, whereby the spectator picks up four unsigned pieces of playing playing card, holds them in there fist, and they end up fully restored in their hand. To be honest, I think the latter is more powerful, but by your described methodology, you are likely to conclude otherwise.

I just want to throw in that convincers don't directly enhance an effect, they merely conceal the method. While this may indirectly aid the strength of the effect, it doesn't mean there is an absolute correlation between how convincing and how strong an effect is.

Generally, when magic is done properly, the spectator is 100% convinced of what they saw anyway, regardless of how convincing the method was.

Huruey

 

[Rmana]

Very nice reply...

Your last point is very true. When I've performed Torn, there's sort of wait around the whole card just being restored, that when it's completely done, it's an aweing effect.

I think what you explained with the four pieces being examined would be the best TnR ever...

 

[Morgan B]

Hi Huruey,

Thanks for responding with an opposing viewpoint. I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think that my logic is flawed; however, I think we do hold ourselves to different standards. Moreover, I respect your viewpoint – but I do want to discuss it, as long as you don’t take it as an attack.

So – I never said “count” the convincers, but consider the level of conviction that is created by the convincers.

Also, after I stated I only wanted to discuss the type of restoration that is piece by piece and not compared it to the type of restoration that happens in the hand, like Williamson’s Torn and Restored Transpo, in past posts, like someone else brought up – you compared it. Regardless, I actually do agree that it has its strengths, but it usually done in a different context – which I agree is stronger, but serves a different purpose and may be different in effect. If you were to stand beside me and do the same effect – tear up a card and put it back together…a single card…then I would assume that the unsigned effect is weaker…if done in your hands. IT would be like you saying that Multiplying balls are not as strong as sponge balls in the hand of the spectator. In short, your comparison, although somewhat accurate, has flawed logic in it.

On a side note: your car/horse example actually reinforced my point: you left out some things. Horses do have some negatives – they don’t go as fast, and they pee A LOT…PUDDLES MAN PUDDLES! However, if cars weren’t invented the benefits would outnumber the loss of getting places fast – no car accidents, no insurance fees, gas wouldn’t be a concern, people would walk more and heart disease wouldn’t be one of the top reasons for mortality…so if you think that adding one benefit to take on a multitude of weaknesses is a good thing, I recommend giving up magic and becoming a politician. At least everyone would know you are lying, haha.

I think the opposite of what you said is true:

I just want to throw in that convincers don't directly enhance an effect, they merely conceal the method. While this may indirectly aid the strength of the effect, it doesn't mean there is an absolute correlation between how convincing and how strong an effect is.

Convincers DO directly enhance the effect, and there is a direct correlation with how convincing an effect is and how strong it is. IF the audience is convinced that something is what you say it is…and something happens – that is magic. Darwin Otriz gives plenty of examples of convincers and their importance in his book “Strong Magic’ – I recommend it, as I always do.

Think about something as simple as ambitious card – if you show the face of the card when it is put in the middle, that is a convincer, it convinces them that their card is really going into the middle. Compare this to just putting an indifferent card into the middle – I will give you 100 bucks if you do this effect and someone over time doesn’t ask to see the card as it’s going in. Good effects are designed to up the level of proof as you are making a claim…look at Tamariz work, he does this too.

Generally, when magic is done properly, the spectator is 100% convinced of what they saw anyway, regardless of how convincing the method was.

I am sorry, but this is contradictory to me – as I believe that when magic is done properly, it consists of multiple mental barriers, convincers and a number of tools used to deceive those that are not as stupid as some magicians may think. I would even argue that the reaction is based on how convinced an individual is that you are doing what you say.