Yeah that's still my favorite, even considering some of the more recent entries into the crowded field of T & R plots. It's not as easy as Torn or Ripped & Restored, but I think it's looks better. And after all, it's not really that hard....

Tony Picasso has a version of T&R. I am not quite sure if it is an adaptation, but I'm pretty sure it is his. It looks great I must say! Hollingworth's is still on my top 3.

Rannie

While surfing the net, I stumbled across a link to what is supposedly "Harry Anderson's T&R Card". Does anyone know if this legit? And if is really is his, is this site authorized by Harry Anderson? If so, I will post the link in Secret Sessions, because this really appears to be a very clever but relatively easy version of the torn & restored card.

Hi Rannie, just wondering where the rest of us can see a video of this Mental T & R, sounds very interesting

Yes we all have our favorite Tand R effects , However making a statement like I can't see how anything could beat Reformation,,,,shows how closed minded we can be.
There is no best any thing.. Best is only an opinion.....
Rannies Mental Torn is different and deserves a look see,His effect requires probably more skill than anything to date ........
I have Seen the Enforcer perfom Mental Torn this is a great walk around effect that can is done up close and personal,,,,,,most piece by piece restorations are only good for a parlour or controlled setting, ...

vinny

Thanks Godfather! Perhaps Charlie can put up a video of the demo. The only demo I have was my maiden performance when it was still rough.

Christopher, I will pm you the link o the demo. Just a reminder the DVD version is far different from the original presentation that I will send you.

Rannie

Scorch,
I’m sorry I missed answering your question(s).

You stated that no one used any motivation for the ACR and I cited two well known magicians who do.

You specifically asked

And I replied that if you were trying for that sort of subtext then a card was a poor choice of material for the effect. I say this because people other than magicians don’t typically have the associations we have for the history of cards and only think of them as the little pieces of paper in that drawer in the kitchen. Thread (for example) is a more neutral medium and also has some more obvious symbolism (at least in the West).

If I’m reading your posts correctly it seems you are saying that T&R effects all have inherent meaning and motivation?

I’m fine with that statement, but I hope you don’t also believe that because magic has some symbolic motivation that it eliminates the need for the performer to understand what they are trying to convey with their presentation?

As I have written repeatedly, it’s not always necessary to have an (obvious) motivation. But I see the comment that magic doesn’t need ANY motivation beyond “because I can” so often, and I see so many young magician’s who only focus on “because I can fool you” that every time I hear it a warning flag goes up.


(Sorry about the Conrad/Campbell confusion… it was late)

Looks great Rannie, very clever thinking. Cant wait for the DVD to come out

No problem, I was just getting in your craw anyway.

And to clarify, I didn't say "no one" uses an exterior motivation for an ACR. I said that I've never seen any. You've named only two people who do. I could name you many dozens who don't (including some of the most famous practictioners of this effect such as Tommy Wonder, Bill Malone, Whit Haydn, et al). And it doesn't seem to be hurting their presentations at all that their patter doesn't include some story as to "why" the ace keeps coming to the top. So it is clear that your theoretical concerns don't apply in the real world to the ACR plot. Why would they be any more applicable to a T & R?



Yes, that's sort of what I'm saying. Not "all," but I do think there is an something inherently powerful about visually seeing a magician tear something apart and putting it back together. It does resonate with people in an inherent way.



I agree with you here. I just don't think that that meaning - whatever it may be for the individual performer - has to come in the form of some bogus exterior pretext. You are right, the magician has to understand what they are trying to convey. But often, whatever that is may not even be something that gets stated in the patter at all.



I understand those concerns as well. But in my mind anyway, those concerns do not lead me to the same conclusions as they have apparently led you to. I believe that you are correct to say that magicians need to understand why they are doing effects, and what they want to convey, and even to operate out of some notion of theoretical integrity. But I just disagree that a exterior motivation for all effects is that construct. And if anything, the typically hackneyed pretexts that magicians come up with (the cliched stories about "this is what they do in the Vegas casinos," the "adversarial spectator" of the Triumph plot, etc.) strike me as part of the very decay in magical standards that you seem to think these pretexts should be addressing.

And again, many of our best effects (as I have mentioned and you have not dismissed to my satisfaction), and many of our best performers have flourished in spite of a general lack of such artifical pretexts as the basis for their magic. (Who the heck "needs" to turn an ace over inside a packet of four aces anyway?) Luckily it's a wide world and there is room for people with differing approaches and perspective, but for my part I would just hope that nobody would close their mind to such a fun, powerful, and popular genre of card magic merely because of an overly-generalized theoretical concern.

I wasn’t trying to prove my point with overwhelming numbers. I was trying to show that your argument was false because contrary examples proved it wasn’t always true. Just because some entertainers can do “magic for magic’s sake” doesn’t mean it’s the only or even best way to approach the task. The fact that more magician “don’t” than “do” dissuades me not at all.


So we DO agree that meaing is important in magic! But you don’t answer my concern that if you are attempting to evoke that meaning that playing cards are the wrong medium to use. I suspect the T&R Card plot exists as “display magic” because most magicians forget where magic comes from in the first place. I would, for example, suggest that if you interviewed 100 magicians that very few could tell you why we do the Egg Bag, or produce feather flowers. But both tricks STARTED OUT as effects filled with meaning to the audiences, and like so many tricks were improved to the point where the original effect is not just lost, but forgotten.


It seems you are disregarding the process because so many people don’t accomplish it well. Interestingly, two great performers (Malone and Vernon) used exactly the themes you mention. I’ve written at length about the appropriateness of the Vernon theme for Triumph and why it is NOT the right theme for many (especially young) magicians and I won’t repeat that here, but the only way to get beyond those “standard” themes is to think about WHY you are doing the trick in the first place.

My buddy Curtis Kam has a theory (in his notes Dangerous Notions) that says that 90% of all presentations are either, Stories, Games or Demonstrations. I agree (and not just because I edited the notes) and I think that the fact that “story” tricks are a solid favorite with lay audiences proves their worth. The fact that so many people do them badly doesn’t change that.

Let’s recap:
Dai Vernon - Signature tricks:
Triumph and Cutting The Aces -both story tricks
Bill Malone - Signature trick:
Sam the Bellhop. Story trick (and then some)
Also, "How cheaters cheat"
Whit Hayden - Signature trick:
Linking Rings teaching a spectator some magic (that’s motivation)
Tommy Wonder – Signature trick:
Not sure here… but his ambitious card is hardly representative of his work. The Ring, the Watch and the Wallet maybe, but that’s motivated on a number of levels as story telling as is his “just ask my Mother” effect, and the one where he tells the story about his playing cards with his brothers. Then there’s the Wild Card effect which stops his performance so he can do “his hobby”. More (and complex) motivation…

Some magicians, most frequently the one’s people cite when they suggest magic doesn’t need any “meaning” are the sort of performers who could keep the audience entertained without doing any magic. Bill Malone is a classic example. He’s a likeable and funny guy and a great host. He could do troublewit or vent or cup stacking and audience would still line up to see him. So arguing that magic doesn’t need “meaning” because Bill Malone’s ambitious card routine doesn’t have any “meaning” is pointless. Bill Malone’s ambitious card routine would be almost as entertaining without the card trick.*










* as evidenced by the fact that his card to pocket “doesn’t even have a pocket”.

You're quite correct, and I never said or even hinted that it was. Your argument is (basically) that effective magic relies on an exterior motivating premise to give it meaning, and the lack of such a premise is an inherent fault in the T & R plot. My argument is that that is not necessarily true, and the success of so many great performers and effects that also lack the premise disproves your theory, showing that the meaning can come from an internal source, inherent to the effect. So the fact that you can name two great performers who use such a premise in their ACRs, and I can name far more who absolutely do not and yet continue to create strong magic anyway, is certainly more supportive of my argument than yours.

I'm not trying to prove my point with overwhelming numbers either. I'm just pointing out that many (easily most) of the best ACRs in the business do not use a false exterior premise. The numbers are not important. The quality of the magic is much more important, as I'm sure we'd agree. And if some great performers use a false premise, and others do not, and we can at least agree on that much, then my argument is supported and yours is disproven.



Yes, of course we agree that meaning is important in magic. I just disagree that the meaning has to ALWAYS come in the form of a false exterior premise. Such stories are quite effective when and where they are effective, and quite unnecessary when and where they are unnecessary.

Having seen a full evening of incredible magic performed by a friend of mine who has mime training and uses NO PATTER AT ALL, I can easily dismiss your argument that a motivational story line is a requirement, and that a lack of a false exterior premise is an irredeemible fault to the T & R (or ACR, or any other) plot. Clearly, if patter itself isn't even a requirement, a false exterior story line most certainly isn't either. There are too many exceptions and holes in your theory to accept it at face value as a hard and fast rule, or even as a specific condemnation of the T & R plot. I do agree with your fundamental concern with meaning in magic, but again I just draw different conclusions out of that concern.

And ultimately, it's a little like that old line about pornography "I know it when I see it." I know effective magic when I perform it, and Reformation ranks right up there with the best effects in card magic. The meaning doesn't come from a bogus story about a dealer in Vegas or an elevator in the King's castle, it comes from elsewhere. You don't need a story to accompany the thing because the thing itself is a thing of beauty and wonder. Especially in light of the powerful effect a good T & R routine has on spectators, merely dismissing it as "display magic" for theoretical reasons is a weak choice in my opinion. And especially if you are unwilling to go down the Joseph Campbell path with me to explore why that might be and why cards are indeed a powerful medium to explore mythic themes and resonances, I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree about the matter.

Rannie, I would love to see a demo of your new effect. It sounds amazing.

Well I first stated that I'd like to know a good reason FOR tearing and restoring a playing card.

To which you responded with "Ah, the old 'what's the motivation' cliche" and "if you applied that overly-theoretical criterion to just about anything we do, there wouldn't be much left to perform!"

So while my statement was a simple opinion that I'd like to see that particular effect motivated you chose to respond with such phrases as “cliché’” and “overy-theoretical”.

I suggested that “if people applied SOME theoretical criteria to their magic there would be a whole lot less bad magic.”

I’ll repeat what I said, and you didn’t address:

I stand by that statement. It’s a lot easier to be interesting and entertaining if you have thought about what you are doing and why. That doesn’t mean adding some stupid little story to the trick, necessarily, but it does require that you be able to answer the question if asked by a spectator.

Why do so many people complain about “theory”?

Is just blindly trying stuff until it works, or asking somebody else on the Magic Café to give you the answer really more enjoyable?

CTG,

I pmed you! Check it out!

Rannie

Torched and Restored is stunning, especially for lay audiences.

I wouldn't recommend either of those approaches as an alternative to blanket condemnations on the basis of theory, irrespective of the strength of the effect.

In jazz music, *theoretically* you're supposed to avoid playing the 4th scale degree against any given chord. It sounds bad. But guess what? Many of the greats do it, and they make it sound really good in spite of theory!

Breaking rules when you know the value of breaking the rules, and discounting theory when it isn't serving you well, are among the most important choices an artist can make.

The best Torn and Restored card I have seen is from Peter Pellikaan from Holland(a "famous underground magician"", ha ,ha), is is doing first a matrix with four torned pieces and at the end (of the matrix) the signed card is restored , maybe we gonna bring this out on DVD if there is any interest (with bonus effect ))

Thanks for the nice words Peter Polo

Torn by Daniel Garcia..for ease of method...

For those who want to compare, try the secret session here where a complete comparison of all T & R effect is listed:

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......37&7