Jon Racherbaumer - Sticks & Stones, Vol 1

STICKS & STONES NUMBER 1 A leaflet for the left hand

This is leaflet proclaims no credo and makes no promises it cannot keep. The Yiddish proverb--"Truth is the safest lie"--is worth remembering. Readers will wonder about the name I've chosen. What does it mean? The instant riposte is: What do you want it to mean? Its symbolism is taken from the duality of human consciousness, a duality long recognized in other cultures. Right and left. Think about it. If you've read Robert E. Ornstein's The Psychology of Consciousness, it helps. The research of R. W. Sperry, Michael S. Gazzaniga, and Joseph E. Bogan has given us more information for our split-brains to perceive. The left is often the area of the taboo, the sacred, the unconscious, the intuitive, the dreamer. This leaflet is for your left hand, although your right-handedness will naturally interplay. It's written in the same fashion.

Paul Curry's "Out Of This World" is a classic. No doubt about it. The structure of its modus operandi is a work of genius, regardless of how much serendipity was involved in its creation. Its personal history remains unknown, although I suspect an inspiration or two can be found in The Jinx. I was two years old when Curry released his best known trick. I didn't experience the effect until I was twenty-two years old. A magician with only one ear (I'm not kidding) performed "Solid Ghost" and "Out Of This World" and the latter effect zapped me. It was impossible! No way! I watched the trick three times; each time it became more baffling... No card effect ever affected me this way... There are many published variations of "Out Of This World". Most of the good ones are included in Curry's book, Out Of This World--And Beyond--a compilation worth studying. On page 14 of this treatise Curry mentions the Stripper Deck. His brief paragraph mentions how Strippers work, but nothing about how they should be applied to "Out Of This World". Most applications happened at the wrong time. The cards were shuffled, the colors were stripped and separated, then the cards

were handed to a spectator to carry out the instructions of "Out Of This World". The following approach is radically different in that the spectator actually deals from a shuffled deck. This buried item is called...

SUBCONSCIOUS WORKING 1) Have a Stripper deck made from a Bicycle or Tally-Ho deck, avoiding tell-tale commercial brands. If you use another magician's matching deck and ring-in your Stripper, you're wired without anyone being the wiser. The red and black cards, of course, are reversed, mixed, and ready for stripping-out. 2) Hand the deck to the spectator for shuffling. After he throughly mixes the cards, ask him to look at the faces of of the cards. Patter: "Quickly scan the cards. Don't try to remember specific cards; just absorb them as a whole..." This subliminally shows the red-black mixture without verbally emphasizing the condition. In fact, the whole presentation is designed so its climax isn't prematurely tipped. 3) After he has "absorbed" the cards, tell him to turn the deck into a face-down dealing position. Explain: "Deal the cards into two portions; however, you may deal the cards in any random fashion you choose. Also you may deal as many cards as you like...one, two, three, four... and the deal doesn't have to be strictly an alternated one. Deal all the cards..." 4) After the deal has been completed, pick up one of the portions and say, "Wouldn't it be amazing if you unconsciously, without counting, dealt exactly twenty-six cards in this portion?" As you deliver this line, hold the cards at their extreme ends and strip-out the colors in a simulated cut. The portion stripped out by your right hand goes on top. Drop this portion on the table. 5) Pick up the other portion and strip-out the colors in another simulated cut as you say, "If the tabled cards consist of half the pack, these too consist of twenty-six cards... None of this is too startling..." Retain a break between the sections. Transpose these sections by cutting at the break. Maintain a new break between the colors. 5) Your right hand scoops up the tabled portion and places it on top of those in your left hand. Retain the break throughout these actions. Now apparently turn the assembled cards face-up as you execute a Turnover Pass with the small packet below the break. Patter: "The part that amazes me is that you've separated the

colors during your subconscious deal!" Ribbon spread the cards face-up to show the color separation. This handling is very direct and when performed properly, it will surprise other magicians. Now for a couple of questions: (1) Where is this gem buried? (2) Who master-minded the handling? Answers: (1) The Gen; (2) Edward Marlo. Edward Marlo continues to be our most prolific cardman-magician. Marlo's Magazine (1976) was published in June. This 325-page, spiral-bound bonanza of advanced cardmanship will give lovers of card magic real substance for their money. Its size and scope will make it unprofitable for xeroxers to crib the Work. I wonder if the ground shook in Teaneck? A month later Magic Inc. issued an enlarged edition of Early Marlo, which includes a Survey of Marlo Accomplishment, items from 1938-1940 (such as "Double Trouble" and "Yogi Bird Card Trick"), and a complete reprint of the manuscript, Unknown.

About five years ago I wrote a brief piece on why more than one method for doing an effect is necessary; that there's a method to the madness of making methods. For those so disposed, here is...

AENOS Change and a self-perpetrating desire for variety seem to reflect a mechanism in our nature. We have ingenuity for permutation and alteration. An analogy quickly comes to mind: Like a child with a kaleidoscope, we rotate the tube and watch the handiwork of mutable, ever-changing, symmetrical forms. Creative elements become bits of glass and we're damned to meddle, tinker, experiment, and modify, turning the tube in our nervous hands. Why do magicians vary effects, handling, and procedures? Why do they devise countless methods? There are, of course, many reasons. The way magic is learned accounts for one reason. Aside from steadfast fundamentals, we learn by assimulation and adaptation. All proposed and implied elements of magic are osmotically absorbed into our consciousness. This kind of disorganized absorption includes irreducible basics and combines them with countless extraneous elements in a mixture that's undifferentiated and often confused. There exists no tried-and-true curriculum, no grand design for learning. Eventually all students

take the elements of knowledge and organize them into a personal form. One's personality is brought to bear upon each article. One's intelligence, native ability, and personal tastes ultimately unify and stabilize aspects of this education. We also make variations for the following reasons: (1) To offer greater selectivity, catering to diverse tastes and levels of ability; (2) To avoid monotony, pure and simple; (3) To allow repetition when the nature of the effect permits it; (4) To introduce techniques applicable to other purposes in magic of which the featured effect is only one; (5) To characterize and specify the exploration for elusive "perfect" methods; (6) To offer precise methods for specific performing situations, thus presenting solutions that have scope and adaptability; (7) To further deepen the serious student's appreciation and awareness of a given effect's total nature-its possible procedures, conditions, discrepancies, dramatic elements, and so on; (8) To offer varying methods that allow for divergent routining exercises which teach the relatedness of elemental concepts. The above list is by no means comprehensive. It's only a sampling, designed to stimulate your own thinking on the subject. Nothing was mentioned about improving effects. Whether a variation improves an effect is always questionable, involving valuejudgements of every kind and degree. Substantiation is a problem. Is scientific proof possible? Perhaps. Usually it comes down to crude intuition. One senses when an effect, handling, or method is right. One feels that something is better or more improved. Who can explain it? One thing is assured. Our literature is founded on variations. It accounts for progress. Authentic improvements are inevitable. Audiences will substantiate our progress and unknowingly answer most practical questions. Someday we may have a means for scientifically and unquestionably evaluating "improved" (?) methods. If this happens (which I doubt), the business of making variations will not cease. It will continue. It will persist despite rationales, systematic analysis, logical and illogical arguments, and scientific proofs. We vary because we are variable creatures ourselves, changing and being changed every moment we are alive.

-JWR July - 1971

EPIPLEXIS The following article was censored several months ago. It was set to appear in a new book; however, certain parties found the article objectionable. Such censorship is offensive to the democratic spirit of ideas. Let's face it: nobody likes to be criticized. People are willing to have every ox gored except their own. Yet we're all critics. It's unavoidable. Should we remain silent? Or should we heap scorn on the closet critic and anonymous letter writer as we forthrightly air our beliefs, opinions, and viewpoints? The act of criticism goes beyond mere fault-finding. It's an act of evaluation wherein the evaluator thoughtfully analyzes his subject and deals with good and bad. The following article involves the so-called Jordan Count. Its purpose is to submit more exacting definitions regarding the general subject of false counting, to clarify accepted misconceptions, and deal with the tricky business of hindsight. After reading this article and giving it some calculated consideration, I'm sure each reader will wonder why it was initially censored.

You Can't Count On Jordan The so-called Jordan Count is NOT a false count! When unearthed by well-meaning cardmen in 1970 each discoverer referred to Thirty Card Mysteries (1919) by Charles T. Jordan. More specifically, each mentioned a technique used in effect #23, p. 37, called "The Phantom Aces". Let's take a closer look. The purpose of this technique, including its mechanics, is to display four cards and secretly alter their order. It appears as though the cards are counted and their order is reversed. Hence it's a displacement technique and has nothing whatsoever to do with false counting. To further substantiate this claim, let's look at the effect, "The Phantom Aces". How does Jordan apply this technique? This is critically important. How a principle or sleight is applied in the context of a given effect adds to our understanding. Its purpose also defines it. This interpretative dynamic is frequently ignored by writers and rewriters of magic history. Here's how Jordan described effect #23: "Anyone's four Aces are fanned, arranged alternately red and black. Calling close attention to their order, the wizard squares them and holds them face-down in his left hand. He transfers them one at a time into his right hand, naming each as he does so, and of course reverses their order. Again he fans them, asking anyone to remove the two of either color. The party cannot obey! He always takes one of each color. This is as puzzling as Monte."

There you have it! Emphasis is obviously placed on the order of the Aces. Reversing their order should not nullify the red-black alternation. Jordan's objective is to displace the alternating color order. After doing the Jordan displacement technique, the order of the Aces will be red-red-black-black. So as Jordan explains: "Naturally it is difficult for the spectator to select the two required cards, as he always avoids two adjacent ones." You might ask, "How did this misinterpretation occur? Who started the Jordan Count business?" Fair question; however, before getting deeply into this subject a few definitions are in order. Here are a couple of literal ones: FALSE - not true, not genuine; fake. COUNT - to check over one by one to determine the total number. (My underlining) What is a false count? DEFINITION 1: A False Count is a technical maneuver that shows more cards as less or less cards as more during a mechanical act designating their number. Each card becomes a unit and their number is emphasized. Such counts are usually handled in a sequential dealing action, either onto the table or from hand to hand. The following counts fall into this category: K. B. Move (Kardyro-Biddle) - Veeser Concept - Open Double Deal - Ellis Stanyon Count - Eddie Joseph Glide Count... DEFINITION 2: A False Display is a technical maneuver that always shows more cards as less during a mechanical act of fanning or spreading them. The disposition or state of the cards is emphasized (implicitly or explicitly) rather than their number. In other words, the operator displays the cards to show their state of being. They may be facing the same, one card may be face-up, some may have different-colored backs, but the visual state of the cards is stressed. The following counts fall in this category: Single, Double, and Triple Buckles - Ascanio Spread - Rough & Smooth... It's obvious some techniques embody elements of a false count and display. Such combinations belong in a special category: Compound Counts. The picture or Gestalt they present is definitely false and the cards are visually or audibly counted. Examples: Elmsley Concept (Count) -Flexible Count - Marfoe Count - Spirit Count Hammon Count - Simulcounts. Certain Compound Counts are unique in that their actual number is the number counted. For example, the Elmsley and Flexible Counts are classified as 4-as-4 techniques. During the mechanics of these

counts two things happen: (1) The order is changed displacement; (2) A card remains hidden during the action.

via

Reread the two definitions cited earlier, then add the following: When more cards are counted as less, certain cards remain hidden during the count. When less cards are counted as more, certain cards must be counted again. 4-as-4 Counts embody the above principles but the "count" is accurate. There are only four cards. However, a card is counted again and another card remains hidden. Are you beginning to see differences? Let's return to the misinterpretation matter and see how hindsight and rushed thinking created the so-called Jordan Count--a technique already established by Edward Marlo in The New Tops (December-1963). The so-called Jordan Count was introduced into the Published Record by Karl Fulves. In Epilogue #9 (July-1970) Fulves writes: "Jordan's ideas, though for the most part well known, still produces remarkable surprises. Fred Lowe recently pointed out that the 'Phantom Aces' in Jordan's Thirty Card Mysteries anticipated by nearly a half century the Four-as-Four or Ghost Count in use today." In Epilogue #10 (November-1970) Francis Haxton contributed an article called "Jordan's 4-as-4 Count". The word play begins. Elmsley's name isn't mentioned but the 4-as-4 modifier should perk the ears of hindsight specialists. Fulves adds his two cents in an editor's note: "I had commented last issue on Charles Jordan's 4as-4 Count but failed to mention that Francis Haxton was among the first to point to similarities between the CTJ count and more contemporary handlings of the same concept. Several readers said they were not familiar with the Jordan Count, so it has been described here, along with Mr. Haxton's excellent handling of the principle. It would be interesting to speculate why the Jordan concept, so popular today, seemed to have been virtually ignored by cardmen when it was first released in 1919." The underscored words in the foregoing excerpt is my underlining. They are emphasized to make my next remarks appear germane. Samuel Butler once wrote: "I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy." Touche! Fulves mentions similarities but fails to cite them. He mentions more contemporary handlings but fails to name them. He uses the

word "principle" in a casual, wrong-headed way. A "principle" is a rule of action or an axiomatic basis for a method of operation. It cannot be used interchangeably with the word "technique". As a contradistinction, a "technique" is a means or method to achieve specific ends. Fulves uses the word "concept", hence gets closer to the truth. There is a Jordan concept in "The Phantom Aces", but there's no false count. The mechanics of the Jordan concept as established by Marlo's Flexible Count is popular now. It wasn't popular in 1970, nor were packet tricks as modish as they are today. The Jordan concept and technique of displacement was not ignored by cardmen in 1919. In fact, in Hierophant 5-6 (1970-71) I published "Riffs of Henry Christ" which mentioned the Jordan technique. Actually Christ gave Jordan more credit than he deserved. It was Christ who discovered that a card remained hidden during the mechanics of the Jordan Displacement technique. He applied this discovery to a refined version of the Collins Ace routine. By the way, the hidden card in the Christ routine was not face-up or reversed. This is important. Now let's discuss Marlo's Flexible Count. As mentioned earlier, Marlo published this technique in the New Tops (December-1963), seven years prior to the Jordan Count business. It's also described in Hex!, a Madsen-Forgione book copyrighted in 1969. Some may cry, "...but what about the Houghton or Modified Elmsley Count?" These are like Marlo's Flexible Count and are found in Verne Chesbro's Ultimate Color Separation No. 2, which came out in either 1963 or 1964. (There's no copyright date on the manuscript.) Houghton refers to his own (?) technique as the "Modified Elmsley Count" whereas Chesbro calls it the Houghton Count (HC). The grip is like the one used in Elmsley's original Ghost Count. Houghton's findings may be an honest example of reinvention. Packeteers are reinventing everyday. Once a cardman begins experimenting with small packets of cards, various combinations, displacements, and techniques will be ultimately discovered. Reinvention is inevitable! So what else is new? Here's the rub: Everyone doesn't take the time and trouble to thoroughly record their findings or intelligently compare them with Established Items. Our literature is understandably chaotic, filled with duplications, contradictions, reinventions (real and rigged), and doesn't-matters of controversy. It's certain we have a specific technique for counting four cards, secretly displacing their order, and hiding a card in the process.

Should we call it the Jordan-Christ -Flexible-Houghton Count? The Phantom Displacement? It's official name is The Flexible Count! If you're still with me, the following may interest you. There are a couple of false counts in one of Jordan's booklets. These may or may not be the brainchildren of Charles T. Jordan. These false counts are used in "The Winged Cards" (Ten New Sleight Of Hand Card Tricks)--a cards-across routine. The 1st false count consists of dealing two cards as one on three occasions as the performer seems to deal seven cards onto a spectator's hand. The 2nd false count consists of secretly stealing three additional cards off the bottom of the deck during a dealing action when seven cards are apparently dealt off the top of the deck and into the performer's free hand. Hindsight specialists could leap on these two items. Jordan invented the Biddle Move! Jordan invented the Open Double Deal! Are we going in circles? This is where we came in... Call the Jordan displacement technique anything you want. If you like to be accurate, call it Marlo's Flexible Count. Since most cardmen don't call their effects and sleights by name, it doesn't matter. Laymen don't care. Jordan and Christ have shuffled off... The established record stands, impacted between hard covers, gathering dust... Jordan Count? Christ Count? Flexible Count? Who's counting? Are you? - Jon Racherbaumer, January 2, 1975

This leaflet is designed, created, and drummed-up by JON RACHERBAUMER. who accepts full responsibility for its contents. May the readers accept responsibility for its ultimate purpose, while taking its fragments and piecing them together into something better and more whole.

Send reactions and counterblasts to me: P.O. Box 1142 - Metairie, Louisiana 70004 or tell Lloyd you want more of the Same!