JNeal you are spot on in your analysis of the two performers differences. It is truly horses for courses. It also demonstrates that the same trick/prop can turn into a different presentation based on personality and performance style and both work well! Thank goodness for that or we would all be more clones (more than we already are that is!!!).

I have watched both performers several times and liked each (for different reasons) and admired the skills shown by each. If nothing else it has shown me to not let the trick get in the way of the performer’s personality and style. After all it is about the performer not the trick!

I always liked the exposure proof method of the Hathaway, but to me the envelope finale of the Nemo was stronger, but the method of the Nemo worried me.

Although I never built it, long ago I had an idea to combine the hathaway method with the Nemo finale.

The method I thought of involved building a special Hathaway houlette, that had a hidden compartment in the back for a duplicate envelope. This way the second card (a "switched in" 50/50 force deck in my method) would come out of the envelope at the end like the Nemo.

I've played with the Nemo envelope finale' a few times. I even tried a full houlette switch once (houlette for set-up houlette). Nothing has really jelled for me (yet). I like your thinking (as usual).

My only problem with the Nemo envelope ending overall, is that it doesn't seem germane or intrinsic to the plot.
Why is one card put in an envelope and not the other one (or two)?
Of the performers I have seen, no one seems to motivate or justify which card is enveloped.

Why is the envelope introduced?
I can think of several ideas off the top of my heard that would logically introduce an envelope:
It could contain instructions for a spectator's actions, or it could be a 'insurance policy against failure, etc;

No pun intended... but when working on a routine... I just hate 'loose ends'!

In the words of Dai Vernon: "Most magicians stop thinking too soon"
Regards-
JNeal

One idea would be to put the spectator's card in the envelope. Then the patter could draw attention to that person's card. It is special because the his card will e of a special nature. Just a thought, but through good patter and action a reason can be established.

It seems to me that the envelope was created to facilitate the trick and it's working, but it is more served in the presentation to get a spectator that can react to the magic of the envelope rising. Hopefully, through widened eyes or wondrous comment, thus conveying to the audience further that he is not in on the working of the cards rising.

There is so much to the envelope rising and the card being able to rise while the envelope is suspended in mid air, that increased the puzzlement in the entire working of the effect.

For some reason, the assistants I have seen participating in this trick are usually men. It is well known that women are more expressive in many ways and make excellent participants on stage. Maybe utilizing a woman would convey the feeling of what is being witnessed.

Something has to be left for the purchaser to discover on his own thus creating a unique effect for themselves.

If we move into justification for everything, I think it better to analyze why a guy is walking out on a stage holding, say, a metal tube and start pulling out yards of cloth. Makes no sense and has no reason to be there at all, I guess you could announce that you were hired to show magic tricks and this is all you could find that looked like magic.

Good points Bill.

JNeal, I think that is why it never stuck in my little routine. I couldn't motivate it. It seemed out of place somehow.

Wmhegbli wrote:

"There is so much to the envelope rising and the card being able to rise while the envelope is suspended in mid air, that increased the puzzlement in the entire working of the effect. "

Agreed William, without a doubt, the envelope rising, followed by the flap opening, and finally... the card rising from WITHIN the envelope is baffling. Rather like the Orange, Lemon, Egg, and Canary plot of something being found within internally nested objects.

Additionally, it isolates / removes the final card from your apparent manipulation. But in order to get MAXIMUM impact out of this series of events, it would serve to performer better to find a reason to introduce the envelope in some offhand but related manner that doesn't 'tip' the final climax. In other words, to keep the revelation a surprise rather than an anticipated conclusion.

Later, Wm. wrote:
"If we move into justification for everything, I think it better to analyze why a guy is walking out on a stage holding, say, a metal tube and start pulling out yards of cloth. Makes no sense and has no reason to be there at all, I guess you could announce that you were hired to show magic tricks and this is all you could find that looked like magic."

While I don't think every article used needs justification, those elements that are introduced into the action but not of apparent importance...need a reason for being there

Harry, I forgot to mention this earlier, but your cogent analysis of the sequence for your Hathaway cards (in another thread) is a fine model of rational plot development. Every reader doesn't need to copy your fine example to benefit from the thinking behind your choices. Accordingly, your writing inspired me to work on the plot myself and come up with my own version. My many thanks!

This kind of discussion and level of thinking on this thread is what I was hoping to find when I joined Magic Café'.

Regards-
JNeal

For those puzzled by what Harry and JNeal are referring to when they mention Harry's routine, here is the forum reference address:

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......orum=8&0
---------------------------------------------

I really do not see how putting a card in an envelope would tip anything from a audience point of view.

I believe this performance of the Jumbo Rising Cards is more of down to earth real world magic experience. Having a selected card all of sudden appear in an envelope is distracting from the plot of the Rising cards.

I guess you could make a whole extended magic trick out of the rising cards. An example would be: 3 freely selected jumbo cards are placed in a jumbo card box, caused to vanish from the box and then they appear rising from a deck of jumbo cards that were shown to be all free of trickery.

I think that in the end an effect like that would weaken the rising cards effect.

One think that sells the Nemo Jumbo Rising Cards is that the spectators handle the deck, select a card of their liking. The houlette is inspected and handled by the spectator before, during the effect, and if wished, after. You could even have the cards marked or signed by the spectators.

The Hathaway is a good effect, but I never liked tricks where you have the cards selected from one deck and then use another deck for the effect. It really becomes more of a mentalist trick the a magic trick. As in, look, the card you selected from that deck is rising from this deck. Now I know you would not want to present it that way, but that is the way I see it.

Wmhegbli wrote:
"I really do not see how putting a card in an envelope would tip anything from a audience point of view. "

Well. it depends on how you build the plot:
I would like see two or three cards rise from the deck..each in an interesting manner. Using an envelope might be a good possibility. But I would prefer to see three cards returned to the deck and put in the houlette before the envelope is introduced into the action. Then the envelope is put into the deck and the card might rise from within. This kind of a plot would not have a surprise element, but would instead offer a challenge aspect to the climax. This version does not require the performer to explain why one card in particular is put into an envelope at the beginning when the others just go intot he deck.

Alternately, the 'instructions' for the trick (which are in an envelope) are given to a spectator to hold. He reads copy from the sheet and this becomes the course of action that is followed. At some point the instructions tell him to give you back the envelope and to have it put in with the cards. Now the card rises from the envelope, it is both surprising and gives the traditional climax.

Either of these versions requires altering methods of sequences, but each is more fulfilling in a theatrical form.

William also wrote:
" Having a selected card all of sudden appear in an envelope is distracting from the plot of the Rising cards."

Agreed...but using an envelope without any comment is possibly equally distracting .

William wrote here:
"One thin(g) that sells the Nemo Jumbo Rising Cards is that the spectators handle the deck, select a card of their liking. The houlette is inspected and handled by the spectator before, during the effect, and if wished, after. You could even have the cards marked or signed by the spectators. "

Without a doubt those are very strong points and if you use the Nemo method, a smart performer will get maximum impact out of emphasizing them! In my efforts to think about various ways to incorporate the envelope more intrinsically, I'm not trying to reduce the impact of those points but rather I want to eliminate any mental confusion about what the envelope might mean to 'the casually disinterested audience member' .

Finally in our rather long discussion William wrote:
"The Hathaway is a good effect, but I never liked tricks where you have the cards selected from one deck and then use another deck for the effect. It really becomes more of a mentalist trick the a magic trick. As in, look, the card you selected from that deck is rising from this deck. Now I know you would not want to present it that way, but that is the way I see it."

this is quite true and I absolutely agree! I was just speaking to our mutual friend Levent this morning about that same point. I know various routines for various reasons have cards selected from a small deck or a second forcing pack and then proceed with the Hathaway.

Of course, this is entirely unnecessary! A Jumbo deck can be used to force the three cards, they can be shuffled into the deck and used immediately in the Hathaway apparatus. I know because that is exactly what I do!

Harry said " different horses for different courses" and this applies to methods as well. Without question Nemo is an impossibly good mystery. Hathaway has strong advantages as well. Each performer should choose effects and methods that best function in the performing conditions they operate in. As performers we should try to maximize the strengths of whatever effects we do and minimize the weaknesses. This will inevitably result in different choices because each of us brings different gifts to the stage.

All too often I see threads on these Fora with names like: "Best linking Ring Routine" or "What is the best method for a Newspaper tear" and (in my opinion) these academic exercises are fun for a short period of time, but ultimately fruitless, because unless the reader can factor in the relative performing strengths and conditions of all the writers...it is entirely subjective.

I am quite pleased to see that this particular discussion did NOT devolve that way.
Bravo to all!

JNeal

Wm,
thank you for sending me the link.. I will look at the video tomorrow when I get to the shop.

I have been enjoying (?) this nice weather by trying to finish painting a 2 1/2 story house. I said I was getting too old for this the last time six years ago. Anyway magic is taking a brief backseat while I climb ladders.

Richard

JNeal, I can only assume your comments are from viewing the Johnson video and the Daniels video. I would like to say that this is not the routine in it entirety. The trick actually uses 3 cards that rise, the 1st just rises from the houlette the spectator is holding, the 2nd is covered with a scarf and rises while covered, and the 3rd of course rises from the envelope.

Now, this adds a bit more to the plot, and may help make the envelope involvement add to the impossible nature of the cards rising.

The original plot of the trick is as follows: this changes the effect slightly to the 1st card rises visibly from the middle of the deck within the houlette. The 2nd card rises after being covered by a scarf, showing what they have just witnessed previously was in fact a card rising with nothing connected to it from above. Thus, showing the audience that in fact a card can rise from the middle of the deck even while covered. 3rd, the envelope rises and the spectator can see there is nothing pushing or pulling it up from his perspective. The flap opens and the card rises with it fully encased inside of an envelope on all sides. How could that be, as all logical solutions are dismissed and disproven from thought.

That is how I see the strengths of this effect. There are weaknesses, but not in the structure of the routine, as I see it.

I agree William!

The version you describe is much better, although in my preferred handling, I would use the scarf covered rise as the first option, and the uncovered version in the middle spot.
This somehow strikes me as stronger as it did Martin Lewis in his Hathaway version and Goshman in his Devano pack routine.

Of course, as your example illustrates, either version can be played as 'stronger' given the proper set up and context. That in essence... is my point as well.

Again, big thanks fro me!

JNeal

Bill, It is not necessary to use two decks of cards with the Hathaway. I don't and never have. I use one deck, cards are "selected" from that deck, returned to that deck, and shuffled by the spectator to there hearts content. I never saw any value added to using a two deck bit of business. There simply was no reason.

The using the scarf covering for the second card in the Nemo does cancell the thought that something might be a modus and maybe with the Nemo structure it plays stronger in that spot.

I like it up front for all the reasons I've explained on the other thread. The problem inherent to all of the routines it the anticlamatic nature of the next card raising (or next two cards raising). The problem is keeping the dramatic tension to the proper release point.

I am partial to the raising card effect. I actually got to see Don Allen perform the Devano deck at the Playboy club in Chicago (remember the old Key Club?). Yep I was a young Naval officer (stationed at Great Lakes) and a member of the club. I'd like to say I went mainly to see Don but that was just frosting on the cake.

I've tried many and still one many. I've the wind-up blocks of wood that are supposed to look like a deck of cards, a remote control version, the Devano (even a jumbo Devano), Al Baker's, Val Evan's slotted tray, the Nemo, and the Hathaway. So far, the Hathaway has stood the test of time with me. Honestly, I have liked them all and I really like watching a polished presentation by a person that has put the time in to make is theirs (like Allen, Johnson, Daniels, Brooke, etc.).

JNeal, thank you for the kind words.

JNeal, it seems I cannot have anything to myself, that is exactly how I do it, cover the 1st, as I feel that is a better way to present it. I had it typed out and then deleted it as I wanted to keep it myself. Oh well.

Harry, I have seen both Don Alan and Albert Goshman present their Devano deck presentations, in their close-up acts. The rising cards is a classic and a good trick.

I never got to see Goshman work except on video. He clear was a master of his craft! By the way this discussion made me dig out my Devano decks and start playing with them again (not to hijack the thread).

Bill, I figured you had adapted your own handling of the routine. You have too much experience to not to do so.

The beauty of the Rising Card genre is that it is truly one of the few card tricks that is clearly visible, easily followed, and very magical that can be performed on a stage/platform as well as close-up. It lends itself to following a dramatic arch with a clear beginning and (hopefully for the performers personal routine) ending/climax.

It also transcends language. I have played Rising Cards on the streets of Amsterdam (in the late 70s) and basically mimed the instructions. It played and was clearly understood and appreciated by the audience.

My Nemo sequence: First card under silk with flute played by spedtator. (Here's my line, "The flute has been sanitized, I dipped in alcohol and licked it clean." Second card egg beater gag. Final card from envelope.

If you wanted to see a CLASSIC that would be Al Flosso with a Martin mechanical poker size deck. He gave me one of the glassed to hold the cards in but SADLY I SOLD THE DECK.

I found Flutes/Recorders available at the dollar store and Walmart that work very well with the Nemo Jumbo Rising Card. I let them keep the Flute as a souvenir.

Well I finally got around to seeing the Johnson video. Thank you Wm! I am still digesting some thoughts on it but a few quick ones.

I have been fortunate to see many rising cards over the years. Don Alan, Goshman, Del Ray, Peter Scarlet , Hooker and many others. The one thing that is hardest about the effect is sustaining interest from the first card to the third card. After all when one card rises, then a second, can the third one be far behind? The pacing and sleight variation in the manner of rising on each card helps to sustain the interest. Goshmand would set the card case in the glass, one under a slik and one with the specator gently swinging the flap on the card case. Del Ray would have the card rise and start and stop as the spectator comanded. It would lean to the left or right as commanded. It would go back into the card and get the correct card after an error. Feinchel made a unit with a flip around card that came up backward and then flipped around. In all these cases, the variety of method helped to sustain the interest.

The Nemo Rising Cards has built into the basic routine three very unique methods of causing the card to rise. I like the light hearted approach to the first two revelations in conrast to the final revelation which seems impossible because the spectator is holding the cards. As for the Nemo method, I have never seen problem with the the light on the T****. I stood in the wings and watch Peter Scarlet do it and saw nothing. I think it is all in blocking and type of th**** used.

I remember seeing the Hooker card rise and Mike Caveney telling how the Hooker Family just did not understand the significance of the Hooker methods. They could have seen a Devano deck and been just as impressed. Which leads us back to the method used is not nearly as important as the actual presentation and effect.

Paul Daniels, because of his great skill as an entertainer, actually made several mistakes in the presentation on you tube. But it did not matter in the end because only magicians would notice. Roy Johnson presentation was very nice and polished though a much different style than Paul's. But still very entertaining. As Levent said, there were so many little touches that showed the genius of the inventor and many performances of it. You can not teach that type of poise and movement of what can be a complicated blocking.

I guess that is main reason I have never done the Nemo Rising Cards. I just do not work enough to feel that I can develop a comfortable and entertaining routine. Writing it all down may help but until you can work it over and over with a live audience, you will never get a routine of your own.

Thanks again Bill for sharing this me.

Richard

I neglected to mention that the playing card placed in the envelope is special in nature to the routine, that is why it is placed in an envelope initially. It is the selected card of the spectator that comes up on stage to help with trick. It his/her card that they see rise from the envelope.

I guess it could be even more meaningful to the spectator for them to recognize their cars as it peeks over the envelope flap. And this could draw more interest for the audience to "stay tuned" as to what the spectator is reacting to. I have not tried this yet, but it may work.

When I first saw Ken Brooke demonstrate this it literally blew me away.
Method and presentation by Ken could not be beat.