One of the things we love at Inside Magic is the news feature Magic From Unexpected Places. The column appears weekly in The Mystic Hollow News and brings treasures from the secular, non-magic world to its primarily magic-oriented readership. For instance, most readers are not aware that Charles Lindbergh stayed awake during his record-breaking trek across the North Atlantic by mentally re-arranging an imaginary deck of cards in the Si Stebbins’ stack. We don’t know if that’s true, but it was in the column last week and caught our attention.
Today’s edition was a celebration of Charles Dickens because this is (or was) his birthday or death day or graduation day or something of significance celebrated for the last century. We will look up the exact day we’re celebrating and supplement this post if it seems important or makes us look better.
The point, though, is Magic from Unexpected Places has portions of two tricks that were to be included in a magic book Charles Dickens was drafting at the time of his death – which may or may have been 100 years ago today.
The first is apparently some sort of card trick:
Magic of a kind but unlike the kind thought by the idle minds of youth or recalled fondly by the old. Not a magic of love or nature but of things! – created not by God – at least not directly, although all concede it must start with Him and proceed through substances of nature to be hewn by man for noble purpose. A tree to be felled, be sawn into boards, or slivered into to pulp for paper upon which the markings of gamblers and the tarot would imprint to make one side memorable (by the fashion of numbers and symbols of hearts and other fanciful images selected to stir one’s memory and emotion) and the other quite forgettable.
We have read this passage several times and think it is just describing a deck of cards: different on one side, same on the other.
The second passage begins what we understand to be a 35-page (single-spaced) description of Charles Dickens’ version of The Cups and Balls:
Appointed as if by chance but clearly anything by random, each of the three orbs had in their respective chalice a home and hiding place but from what? The balls were not vulnerable nor impervious to injury – they were just perfect, round and solid with nothing more and nothing less. Their partners in performance sat in perfect line awaiting movement from within or, if some real magic were to occur, without their gilded sides.
We are guessing that despite his knowledge about the nitty-gritty world of London’s poor and homeless, Charles Dickens would have failed miserably at street magic proper. In the time it would have taken to ask a participant to take a card, the seasons would have changed or the volunteer would have passed on from old age.
There was a great exchange between Charles Dickens and one of his readers on the topic of magic books and the tendency to describe all volunteers with disrespectful terms; like “stooge,” “fool,” “victim,” “dope,” or “ne'er-do-well.” The topic is relevant to magicians today:
When upon being invited to the platform not as a gallows or stump for final passing but to join – ho! Join indeed! – in the show proper portrayed from the perspective of the audience but now on stage yet not quite a performer but nonetheless performing as if he – and it is almost certainly a man because a woman being either too wise or weary to permit such an invitation to be extended towards her from any stranger much less the stranger who has already professed the ability to lie and trick with such guile and skill that the assembled patrons are to give their best attempt to catch him in (or catch him out – as may be the case, as it certainly would be) – had their collective wits within his own sweating skull and through his confused eyes blinded by the lime-fed lights before him could see any clearer what was about to happen or, to the point, happen to him in retribution for his bountiful spirit and delightful joining in an event for the benefit of all at his sole expense. The “dunce” or “spot” becomes the full lever and fulcrum of the cruel effect visited upon him and exposing (accurately or no) his ignorance or lack of grace or lack of schooling or (in the case of a poor old codger who was apparently a professor of some local university, Professor Cheer) a lack of undergarments.
Boy, they sure don’t write ‘em like they used to. Happy birthday or whatever it is to Charles Dickens and of course to David Copperfield, his son, we think.
Several months ago, we published an article about T. Nelson Downs' adopted hometown celebrating his part in their history. Researching the story got us thinking and researching and reading.
That's a lot for a bear with little brains, as AA Milne noted. So it took us a lot longer than we expected to get where we are now. And where exactly are we?
We have read, re-read and corrected our distillation of the several copies of Mr. Downs' Modern Coin Manipulation floating about the public domain realm of the interwebs. None of the publicly available and public domain versions of the book were ready for publication. There were pages missing, headings applied incorrectly and very poor scanning performed. Our various attempts to run optical character recognition scans met with failure due to one or more of these flaws.
Our solution was to purchase some pretty sophisticated OCR, image and books assembly software. We were able to stitch together images from different scanned versions into one document ready for OCR and assembly. Still, we wanted to do more. Mr. Downs' book has historical references throughout that need to be chased. For instance, he begins the book with a defense of his position that he was the true inventor of the Back Palm.
He provides the place and time for his first public use of this essential sleight and suggests that those who claim to have invented the move are wrong or disingenuous. His use of the sleight was to hide and produce coins as part of his Miser's Dream routine. But he notes that other magicians use the same move for card effects.
Speaking of The Miser's Dream, Mr. Downs dedicates substantial portion of the book to teaching this classic act. His instruction is outstanding and the images are very helpful but if one hopes to duplicate his success with the act based on a quick reading and memorization of the script, that one will be frustrated and sad.
The moves taught are knuckle-busters plus. Perhaps part of his motive in writing this book was to dissuade would-be imitators from starting. If you are just starting in Magic or have worked as a professional for decades, this book will have something for you. You may not yet have the skills to perform everything but you will find something to fit your routine with a little practice.
Robert Browning was clearly speaking of magicians when he wrote, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp / Or what's a heaven for?"
We will put T. Nelson Downs' Modern Coin Manipulation in the Inside Magic Library for those who would like a copy. The version will be revised periodically to include annotations and cross-references. Let us know if you find any problems with this or later editions. Enjoy!
Inside Magic congratulates David Copperfield on his deserved ascension to the awesome position of King of Magic and awarded the “Magician of the Century” designation.
The Society of American Magicians (“SAM”) bestowed both accolades upon the peripatetic and prolific prestidigitator.
Mr. Copperfield has earned many titles and laudatory commendations throughout his incredible career but unlike us, is not willing to rest on his laurels. The SAM’s press release notes the ever-young performer still puts in an honest day’s work by presenting his full show more than 500 times a year.
The Society previously picked him as “Magician of the Century” for the 20th Century – quite a feat considering the incredible lot of magicians that performed from 1900 through 2000.
This is the first time the Society has named a “King of Magic.”
Our U.S. Constitutional research shows Mr. Copperfield’s acceptance of this title does not run afoul of Article 1, Section 9:
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
See, Cornell’s fantastic resource, the Legal Information Institute here..
Note, it is a popular misconception that a more strict prohibition against titles was added to the Constitution by Amendment. While there was a Titiles of Nobility Amendment passed by the Senate, House of Representatives, it was not ratified by the requisite number of states and is not law.
We would like to go on record as saying that even if the Titles of Nobility Amendment had been ratified and Mr. Copperfield’s acceptance of the title “King” violated that law, we would not turn him in.
The Society gave the title in recognition his efforts “to advance, elevate, and preserve magic as a performing art, to promote harmonious fellowship throughout the world of magic, and to maintain and improve ethical standards in the field of magic.”
However, as Inside Magic reported recently, Mr. Copperfield earned the more significant and lasting title of Father with the recent birth of his daughter, Sky. The magician and his beautiful French model girlfriend, Chloe Gosselin kept Sky’s arrival under wraps for about 16 months before the lay and magic press discovered the happy news.
Under traditional rules and customs pertaining to royalty, Sky would properly be considered a Princess of Magic but Chloe Gosselin could not attain the title of Queen of Magic unless she married the then-existing King.
Additionally, we are informed by a scholar on royalty that kingship is rarely attained by talent or popular acclaim. In fact, 77.41 percent of all kings or queens attained their position simultaneously with the murder, execution, coup d’état, or suspicious disappearance of the previous monarch. Continue reading King Copperfield Joins Roster of Magic Royalty
We certainly do not disagree but wondered if the statement should be considered “news.” After all, it is well known that all intellectual property attorneys are by tradition always either suave or debonair; and a select few of us are both.
We read further into the expertly written essay and understood. The theater critic was using what us professional writers call, “an introduction” or, as we say around the professional writers’ clubhouse, “an intro.”
But we are quick to protest — probably because we were conceived during some beatnik protest in the late 1950s — that Guy Holingworth needs no introduction. Magicians and magic fans know him well from his writing and performing neat effects with ordinary cards.
Then we read further into the review and realized the introduction was primarily for those unfamiliar with Guy Holingworth. We calmed down, popped a Chocks and continued sounding out the words as quietly as possible lest we wake those around us in the Mystic Hollow Public Library.
Recent Comments