Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

Woody Aragón Vanishing Inc.

MASTERCLASS
(a pdf for the attendants)

Hello! Woody Aragón writing here. This is a compilation FOR YOU, as a

client of the wonderful Vanishing Inc. And with all my gratitude for buying my
masterclass and/or participate in the Q&A session.

A time has passed since we did the live masterclass, so I hope this is a
good memory to some of the tricks and concepts I spoke about, and a way to
refresh for you this content. I hope you enjoyed the masterclass in video, but as
I’m not an english native speaker (well, you’ll think also I’m not a good writer in
english, and here I am) I thought it was a valuable idea to add some of the more
“conceptual” tricks and theories in written form. Mostly comes from “A Book in
English”, but there is some changes. Sorry for the new parts cause I wrote it by
myself, with a proper translator.

I really hope it will be useful for you. A hug from Spain and thank you!

Woody

P.S.:The good news is that having this PDF does not force you to read it
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

DIRECT SPELLING
I try to get closer with this trick to the "ideal" of the classical card spelling
effect, but with a very practical method and in a way that everything happens in
the hands of the spectator. It's a simple and straightforward trick I uses very often
as opener, ideal for a sequence of fast effects.

EFFECT:

After unquestionable shuffling, the magician leaves the deck in the hands
of a spectator for "the famous spelling game." One spectator is asked to say a
value and another spectator to say a suit, forming a free card. The spectator
spells the card by giving one card per letter, without the magician even going near
the deck. Despite the conditions, at the end of the spelling is the named card.

EXPLANATION:

It is a small arrangement of 9 cards that go like this: 7♣-7♠-7♡-7◇-

indifferent card-8♣-8♠-8♡-8◇.

This pack is kept on top of the deck by shuffling only the rest. For me an
overhand shuffle controlling the upper ones seems sufficient, but since there are
only 9 cards, we could have them palmed, give to shuffle the rest of the deck,
and then add them. Raise 9 cards on top (7♣ is in 10th position from the top). We
hand the deck to a spectator.

Now the effect of the spelling is announced and a spectator is told "Tell me
a number, ANY NUMBER YOU WANT... from 5 to 10 so that it is not...". Obviously
you emphasize "any number you want" to then tell him, a little softer, as if it were
an indication only for him, "from 5 to 10, so that it is not..." (So that it is not...
what? You'll never respond, nor do you have to. This casual, unfinished phrase
just naturalizes the command so that the "5 to 10" margin looks like you've thrown
it together.)

It is the classic force that says that if you ask a spectator for a number from
5 to 10, he will tell you 7. It works 90% of the time if you ask the lay public. With
magic fans, forcing does not work the same, either because they know it, or
because they flee from naming the most obvious number or the number that first
comes to mind. However, it actually does work: if you ask for a number from 5 to
10, 90% of magicians tell you 8.
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

If the 7 or 8 is called, we then announce the conditions of the effect, a bit

like Tamariz's "deaf technique": "Ah! Because with the value and the suit we will
form a card, you will spell it, and at the end of the name will be the card... what
number did you say, excuse me?"

And that's it. We just have to ask another spectator to name a suit to
complete the card and tell the one who has the deck how to spell it, as follows:

seven spades
seven clubs
seven hearts (exception: it’s the next card AFTER the spelling)
seven diamonds
the eight of spades
the eight of clubs
the eight of of hearts (exception: it’s the next card AFTER the spelling)
the eight of diamonds

I think it is very good to ask for the number, spell it, and then ask for the
suit (it is emphasized that the suit is free, at a time when the effect is already well
defined).

Output for the force: If the spectator names another nombre, he is asked
to draw the card in that position and we do any other spelling trick that requires a
chosen card, but using that card.
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

COINCIDENCES with Incidences

EFFECT:

A deck is shuffled several times, both by the magician and the audience. It is
finally mixed face up and face down. Two selections, one face up and one face
down, are made. They are shown, and they happen to be mates! Then the cards
are dealt in two piles. Once again two cards are selected, stressing the (true)
freedom of both choices. Even so, both cards match again. Finally, one of the
halves is shuffled again, at the audience’s will. But once again, the cards in both
halves match… and the next ones, and so on with the rest of the deck!

SETUP:

Arrange the deck in a mirror stack (Rusduck’s stay stack). This means that the
first card is the last card’s mate, the second one matches the second to last, and
so on, until the last two mates meet in the center of the deck.

METHOD:

Start by doing any number of Faro shuffles (the mirror stack remains, no matter
how many times you Faro the deck). Do not finish the shuffle, but instead leave
the cards half weaved and spread them on the table, faces down. Here I use
some of Juan Tamariz’s evil ruses for the Faro shuffle to hide the fact that the
cards are weaved one on one.

Pick up the deck and locate the matching cards in the center. Cut the deck at
this point. Arrange both halves facing each other, but one of them face up and
the other face down, and present them this way to a member of the audience at
your right. “Now it is your turn to shuffle” say, ”but this time some of the cards will
be face up and some will be face down”. Ask him to shuffle the two halves, but
not to square them. (Before it was you who shuffled the cards and he who
squared, but the script is designed so that everything will be mixed in the
audience’s memory, in order to create the feeling that both spectators shuffled).
After the shuffle, tell him to spread the cards, and square them.

At this point of the routine I usually grab the deck and execute the wiper move,
to make it seem that the deck is mixed further, but it is not necessary.

FIRST PHASE:

Spread the deck in your hands slowly, and ask the spectator to your left to touch
any face down card. He will choose one, and you will move your left hand forward
in order to leave it on the table, while the right hand holds the cards that were on
top of the chosen one.
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

Now you have to peek at what will become the key card: the first face down
card on top of the selection. It might be the one right on top, which means it will
now be the face card of the group you hold in your right hand, or it might be a few
cards away. In this case, after tabling the selection, both hands come together
for a second, as if squaring the cards. Then, as an afterthought, the right hands
turns over and points to the tabled cards, as you say “well, you could have chosen
this card, that one… or any other card”. At this moment, peek at the key card,
memorize it, and turn over again the right hand, so everything looks just the same
as a moment ago.

Now you need to locate the face up mate of the key card. Because of the mirror
stack, and the fact the two halves were mixed while facing each other, it cannot
be far away from the key card itself. In fact, the next face up card (the one under
the key card’s mate) will be the selection’s mate. You’ll now force this card on the
spectator to your right.

I mostly use the classic force as, if done correctly, it has almost a 100% success
ratio in the situation you’re in. Start spreading the cards to the spectator on your
right, and ask him to touch one, just as you would do in a regular classic force.
But, when he is about to touch a card, you tell him “touch any card… but a face
up one”. His last sentence warns him not to touch a face down card, making him
hesitate for a moment. Due to timing, he will accept the next face up card (the
force card), which is casually next in the spread…

Leave this card next to the first selection, and put the deck away. Reveal the
first coincidence. Then, isolate the chosen cards together, face up, in the top right
hand corner of the table.

SECOND PHASE:

You will now deal the deck in two piles, separating the face up cards from the
face down ones.

Say that you will attempt to repeat the feat, but in a different way, trying to use
your intuition to make the coincidence happen again. When you’re done dealing,
grab the face down pile, and do a fan with it. Show the faces to the spectator to
your left, so that he can see all the cards are different. Tell him that there can be
no shadow of doubt that he has a free selection. Show him the fan, face down,
and ask him to touch a card. When he does, cut the fan at this point, again
grabbing the selection and the cards under it in the left hand, and the rest of the
cards in the right. You will once again table the selection, but now, both hands
get together, and the left hand deposits its cards on top of the right hand ones,
thus cutting the pile at the place of the selection. Then, table the half, taking a
peek at the bottom card of the pile as you do so.

The mate of this card will once again be your key card in the face up pile. Take
the pile and, as you fan it, explain to the spectator on your right what he will do.
You will present him with the fan, just like you just did with the previous spectator.
But this time all the cards will be face up, so that he can see the card that he is
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

choosing. He will then freely touch a card and, once again, there will be a
coincidence.

In spite of the apparent freedom that you are giving to the spectator, you will
now try to force the first selection’s mate on him, just like before. But this time,
instead of using the classic force, you will use a different, much more subtle
method, whose success depends precisely, on having him lose interest in using
his freedom of choice. That’s what makes this phase so strong.

What you will do is this: When you fan the cards in front of him, locate the key
card. The card to be forced is the one under it.

Now use your thumb to “arrange” the fan, and exaggerate the opening between
the two cards, so there will be a greater extension of the force card in the fan.
Then ask the spectator to extend a finger, and touch a card, and mimic the action
with your right hand. He will follow you with his finger, extending it and then you
will slightly reposition your arm so that the forcing card lies right in front of the
spectator’s finger.

Ask him to lower his finger and touch a card. 90% of the times he will touch the
one we want.

And, at this very moment, you will reinforce the complete freedom of choice,
building tension in order to make the most of the effect. Tell him “This card? Are
you sure? You can touch another one if you want. This will happen no matter
which one you choose. This one, that one...”

And the spectator will not change his mind, most of the time. Why should he?
The previous selection was completely free. You just promised him the same
freedom as the first spectator. To make things even better, the cards are face up,
so there can be no doubt that, should he choose a different card, the resulting
mate would be completely different. Most importantly, you gave him the additional
complete freedom to change his mind, and you announced (with total conviction)
that the coincidence will happen no matter what card he chooses. He does not
know what method you are going to use to make the coincidence happen, but at
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

this moment in time, he probably doesn’t believe that changing his mind will make
any difference.

Thus, under conditions of total freedom in both spectators’ selections, you now
reveal a second coincidence, and that usually hits the audience very hard. Even
better, you can now go on to the third phase.

But now, my dear reader, you are probably wondering what would have
happened if the force failed, or if the spectator wanted to change to a completely
different card. Don’t worry, as I said before, the force will work perfectly due to
the confidence that you will have in its success. And this confidence comes from
the fact that, from the very beginning, you know that NOTHING could go wrong,
even if the spectator selected a different card.

If the force card is not selected, you simply switch to a different effect, as you
are now in perfect position to perform one of the possibilities in Eddie Joseph’s
Staggered: You never said that the two selections would match. Instead, you told
the audience that you will use your powers of intuition to make sure that, despite
the total freedom of choice, there will be another coincidence.

Proceed like this: After the second selection is done, leave it face up next to the
first one, and do not say they will match. Just announce that, after two free
selections have been made, you will now try to detect where a coincidence might
happen. Cut the second packet at the point the selection was made.

Leave it on the table, to the right of the other half, facing down, and turn the top
two cards face up. 90% of the times they will not match (if they d0, show the
coincidence and stop at this point). However, the card on top of the left half will
be the new key card. Start dealing pairs of cards on the table (the audience will
see there are no matches). If there is one, just keep on dealing cards until you
deal the key card’s match on the right pile. Stop right there.

Announce that the coincidence will happen with the next two cards. Deal the
right half’s top card and show it. Then turn the left half’s top card face up... and
show that the two cards do not match. Show hesitation for a second.

Then, as if suddenly realizing something, you point out that the card does not
match the one next to it... but it does match the card the spectator chose from the
face up cards in the fan. This coincidence is a double one: If you stopped at a
black king and a red nine, the two selections will also be a black king and a red
nine! Put the four cards together; face up, over the matching cards from phase 1.

Gather the cards. One of the halves will remain the same (the dealt cards are
taken together and added face down, to the pile). The other half will be cut at the
point you stopped dealing (turn the dealt cards face down, then take the rest of
the pile and drop it on top). Thus, each halve is, once again, in reverse order to
the other one.
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

THIRD PHASE:

Tell one of the spectators that, for the last coincidence, one of the halves will
be shuffled, and the other will keep its current order. Ask him to point at the pile
he wants to have shuffled, and table the other one next to him (if you want, you
can ask him to put his hand over the pile, so that it is even more impossible for
you to change or modify the order of the cards).

After false shuffling the other half, announce that now “everyone will participate”
in shuffling the cards even further. Execute the swindle shuffle, as previously
described.

Gather the “mixed” half, and hold it in your right hand, face up. Ask the spectator
to give you the other one, taking the unmixed half face up in your left hand.
Everyone will see the two face cards match. Pause, and let the image register in
the audience’s minds. Then push both cards with your thumbs, and deal them on
the table. Two matching cards will be, once again, at the faces of the two halves.
Be careful so as to stop for a moment, keeping your hand still, every time you
show a new pair of cards, so everybody can see the total coincidence. Start
dealing cards, two by two, until you run through the whole deck.

ADDITIONAL REMARKS:

This is my version of the classic coincidence routine based on the mirror stack
(a la Martin Nash’s Ovation). I developed it many years ago, in an attempt to
adapt the three phases of Tamariz’s Total Coincidence to a single deck, while
incorporating my own techniques and handling. I chose to include this routine for
two reasons. Not only do I think it is a good trick, but it also combines several of
my published techniques. The swindle shuffle and this whole trick are published
in my “A Book in English”.
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

THE HUMAN SCALE

This is one of my most famous tricks and one of my essential routines whenever
I perform stage or parlor magic. I am very fond of it. Pit Hartling told me, not long
ago: “I think this is the best “weighing the cards” I’ve ever seen.”

EFFECT:

A classic plot: The magician is able to ascertain the number of cards in a group,
only by feeling the weight of them in his hand.

THE SET UP:

You will need a complete deck of 52 cards (or a deck whose number of cards
you know). Place one of the suits in order, Ace to King (we'll use Diamonds as
an example). The stacked suit should be on top of the deck.

METHOD:

Start by shuffling the deck, without altering the 13 card stack on top, as you tell
the audience that, after years of practice with the deck, you can even feel the
cards by their weight.

“For example, if I wanted to cut to, say, 13 cards... what I would do is cut the
deck, just like that...” Holding the deck, cut approximately a quarter of it, trying
not to get more than 13 cards. Act as if you are weighing the cards, and use this
opportunity to peek at the bottom card of the pile. Its value will tell you how many
cards are in your hand. If, for example, you cut to the JD, say “Hmmm... no, there
are 11 in this pile... I need to get two more cards...” - add two cards under the
Jack, and repeat the weighting gesture - “right, there are 13 this time”.

Give the rest of the deck to a spectator, and ask him to shuffle the cards
thoroughly. Meanwhile, give the 13 cards to a second spectator, asking him to
count them, (or you can do it yourself) and thus reverse their order.

Don't give any importance to this effect (it’s not really very powerful, because
you cut the deck). Its goal is to eliminate the surprise factor in the next phase. If
you didn't perform this phase, you would be wasting the second phase because
the next effect allows, and is more suited for, creating suspense rather than
surprise. It also justifies the shuffling of the rest of the deck, while naturally
isolating the 13 stacked cards that we need (the stacked ones). I usually perform
this first phase as I walk through the audience, while they are still seated.

(REAL) FIRST PHASE:

Ask the two spectators to join you onstage. False shuffle the 13 card packet as
you do so and, once on the stage, take the rest of the deck and Faro the 13 cards
into it. Address the spectator who shuffled the 39 card deck “Did you give them a
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

good shuffle? Ok, let's shuffle those ones too...” and Faro the two packets. It
doesn't matter whether you do an in or an out Faro, because it's actually better if
you weave the cards in the middle of the pack. Just make sure that only one
indifferent card gets between every two cards in the stacked suit.

Spread the cards, showing the apparent randomness of the cards, and locate
the AD. Cut the deck two cards above it, and leave it on the table, face up. The
situation is: The deck is on the table, face up, and the AD is the third card counting
from the faces, the 2D is the fifth, 3D is the seventh, and so on...

Ask a spectator to cut some cards, less than half of the deck, and place them
over your hand. Keep your hand flat, and your fingers extended, so that no one
suspects you might be using your fingers to count the cards.

When the spectator cuts the cards, there are two possibilities. If the card on the
face of the pack is a Diamond, multiply its value by two in order to obtain the
number of cards you are holding.

If that was not the case, simply extend you hand slightly, so that the cards slide
slightly over each other, allowing you to glimpse at the index of the bottom card
of the pile (it will be a Diamond). Multiply its value by two, and add one.

In any case, you will know the number of cards you have in your hand.
Announce it, and give the cards to the spectator who cut the cards. Ask him to
turn over the cards as he deals them on your hand, counting them (as he is
turning the cards over, the cards will stay in the same order). Once the spectator
counts, proving that you were right, take your deserved applause, and put the
cards back on the deck.

SECOND PHASE:

Take the deck and, using the after-effect relaxation to your advantage, run 11
cards from the top of the deck to the face. That leaves the AD on the 14 th position
from the face, and so on...

One of the problems I find when performing these kind of “super powers”
routines is that sometimes it is so feasible that, for some of the audience, it
becomes more a display of great ability, rather than magic. In order to avoid this,
I took the conditions to the extreme, in creating this second phase. The truth is,
calculating the number of cards in a pile you are holding is not so complicated,
but doing so in the conditions that I will now present is, if not real magic,
something that comes very close to it.

Ask your audience for a bag, a scarf, a handkerchief... anything that can hold
a deck of cards inside will do. Hold it with one hand, concentrate, and say
something like “this weighs as much as... say... 70 cards”. Take the card box, and
do the same.
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

Give the box to one of the spectators, asking him to examine it. Tell him that he
is to cut a good chunk of cards, about half of the deck - not exactly; a few cards
more, or a few cards less. The idea you want to convey to your audience is that,
the more similar the packet they leave to the one they take, the harder it is for us
to calculate its weight. Actually, as long as the spectator cuts between 13 and 37
cards, the trick will work.

After the spectator cuts the cards (it doesn’t matter where he cut), ask him to
put his cards into the box, close it, and put it inside the handkerchief, bag... or
whatever the item you previously weighted.

Throughout this whole procedure, keep your back turned to the audience. But,
at the exact moment when you tell the spectator to put the cards into the box,
address him by turning slightly, and use this opportunity to peek at the top card
of the remaining pile.

Once again, there are two possibilities. If the card is a diamond, after the first
spectator has packaged the cards, ask the second one to put the remaining cards
in his pocket, so that when you finally face your audience, there are no cards in
sight. Take the package, put it in your hand, pretend to weigh it [don’t forget to
pretend to subtract the weight of the handkerchief and the box from the weight of
the package in your hand], and name the number of cards inside.

Obviously, you get the number by multiplying by two the value of the peeked
diamond, and adding 11 to it. That means that if you see the 5D, 5 x 2 = 10, 10 +
11 = 21, the spectator has cut 21 cards.

If you see an indifferent card, just tell your audience “I need a single card as a
weight reference” and when the spectator gives you the top card, peek at the next
one, which will be a diamond card. Multiply its value by two and add 10 to get the
number of cards inside the box. Give the “reference” card back to the spectators
after weighing” it, act as if you were subtracting the weight of the handkerchief
and the box, and continue with the revelation.

THIRD PHASE:

Ask the spectator who put the cards into the box to shuffle his cards thoroughly,
and ask the other one, who has the rest of the deck... to do the same. Even after
destroying the stack, you will now repeat the demonstration in a very dramatic
way.

“Do you want to know how I do it? I will explain it to you. It is not only a skill, but
I am actually a human scale... let me show you...” Gather the deck, taking back
the cards from the spectators. You might be thinking: How can I know the position
of any cards, after being shuffled by the audience? The answer is an easy one:
You know exactly how many cards each one had, because you just guessed them
in the previous phase!

At this moment, it has been a while since you guessed the number of cards that
were inside the box. In this example, there were 21 cards. Because you know this
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

is a complete deck, you also know the number of cards in the other pile. In this
case 52 – 21 = 31. Let's call the small number (21) X, and the large one (31) Y.

Ask the spectator holding the Y pile for his cards first. Place them face up in
your left hand. Remember the card on the face of the pile; it will be your key card.
Place the rest of the cards (the X pile) face up on top of the Y pile. You are now
holding the deck, with a key card in position X+1 (22 in this case).

Ask one of the spectators (use the one who has been least involved in the trick
so far) to cut a pile of cards, about a quarter of the deck, and place it over your
right hand. Insist on the complete freedom of his choice, telling him he can add
or remove one, two or three cards before placing the pile on your hand. Just make
sure he cuts above your key card.

Extend your arms so that each hand can be watched at all times by a spectator
(once again, make sure that no one can suspect that you are counting the cards).
Be as serious as you can, make a big deal of what you are about to do. If you
can, play some tense music and dim the lights. The contrast of the stage with the
situation of having someone with his arms extended, acting as a human scale, is
a very funny moment, but your audience will be completely engrossed in the trick.

Acting as a scale, raise your right hand, the one with the smaller pile, and lower
the left one. As if trying to reduce the weight difference between the piles, start
dropping, one by one, cards from your left hand. Meanwhile, start raising your left
hand, as the right hand lowers.

As you drop the cards, start counting backwards, keeping in mind how many
cards are on top of the key card...(in our example, think “there are 21 cards left...”
drop one, then “there are 20 cards left...” drop another one, “19 left...”) until you
get to the key card. The number you count down to when you get to the key
card (which you see, but do not count) is the number of cards that the
spectator has cut (those cards are in your right hand).

Now that you know the number, you only need to drop the necessary number
of cards from the left hand. And, since you now know the pile has Y cards, count
the key card as “Y-1”, and continue counting. For example, suppose you counted
14 cards in the right hand pile. You remember the value of Y is 31, so you drop
the key card and count “30”, drop the next one “29”, next “28”... until you drop the
card and get to “14”. At that point, both piles will contain the same number of
cards (14 in this case).

All of this secret counting actually helps to convey the image of real
concentration, and that makes the demonstration a very powerful one (if it looks
“real”, the audience genuinely feels the difficulty of the task you are attempting).
When you finish with your counting, relax. And, at the moment your two arms are
on the same level, smile and show your audience that you just made it! Many
times, the audience will start clapping even before you have proved anything!!!

Name the number of cards cut by the spectator and, dramatically starts
dropping cards in pairs, from both hands, at the same time. Count them as you
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

do it, until you reach the named number. The tension of the magician dropping
cards one by one, until he runs out of cards at the exact moment of the climax,
make this a very powerful ending to the routine.

ADDITIONAL REMARKS:

Some people say that card magic does not work on stage. Well, I can proudly
say that I have even used this effect to close a stage gala, performing after
several professionals in manipulation, great illusions and stage magic, with
magnificent results (even I was surprised!). In any case, you can also perform the
routine close-up. Just drop the cards on the table.

After presenting this version of the trick in one of the galas at the Escorial
meetings, some years ago, Steve Beam told me Tom Hubbard had a similar idea
to the third phase of my routine. I never had the opportunity to share my ideas
with him, but I later realized that I had read Hubbard's idea in The Card Magic
of Nick Trost (I hereby suggest that you read it, as it requires a key card in a
specific position, but uses calculations that are much simpler than the ones you
have to do in my handling). So, the idea must have been lurking in my brain for a
while, until it gave birth to what I thought was a creation of mine. That’s my credit
to Mr. Hubbard, with a sincere wish of getting to know his work better (the few
things of his that I've read are really brilliant).

I will now confess that, although I speak of a 52 card deck in the description of
the method, I actually use a 50 card deck, by either palming a couple of cards
before I start, or by removing any cards, without showing them, as I say “I will
now remove the Jokers”. The reason is that I've always been more comfortable
calculating the cards needed to reach 50 at the beginning of the third phase.

I will also tell you that I never use a suit in order, although it works perfectly for
the routine. In performance, I use the first 13 cards from my mnemonic stack. As
I decided not to publish any mnemonic deck tricks in this book, I have described
the effect with the ordered suit idea, but if you use any stack (Tamariz, Aronson...)
using the first 13 cards of the stack works perfectly, and allows you to fairly show
the first 13 card pile (the ones in the warm up phase). Another possibility is to
have a packet alternating even diamond cards with odd clubs cards to disguise
the order.
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

CONSTRUCTION AND
COMPOSITION:
THE STRUCTURE OF MAGIC (a summary)
This is an extract of the essay about structure in magic I wrote for “A Book in
English”. I think it clarifies some of the points I spoke about in the VI Masterclass.

Not much has been written about the construction of magic(1). Nevertheless,
some of the books on the subject are real gems. But most of the time, they are
focused on how to construct magic by combining effects and methods, in order
to create something greater than the sum of its parts, the goal being to completely
disguise the method, so that the audience never suspects anything, and the
magical atmosphere (2) is heightened.

That means that almost all of the good studies in the subject deal with how to
construct the “inner life”(3) of our acts: Crossing the gaze, parenthesis of
forgetfulness, the tube effect, working after the effect is finished, and so on...

But what about the “outer life”? How to combine, build and order our routines,
acts, or magic sessions from the point of view of what the audience feels? From
what has been written so far, sometimes it seems that “Start with a quick and
visual effect, then perform tricks with an increasing impact order, and finish with
your best trick” should be enough.

The best written work regarding these matters is an amazing article, published
by Tamariz in the Escuela Mágica de Madrid's circular letter, explaining how he
structures his own stage act, and going into details on the function of each trick,
what the audience receives from it, and what Juan's objectives are in doing that
trick at that precise moment.

I should also say Gabi, in his multiple notes and essays references the subject,
but does not go into detail. Nevertheless, he makes a nice distinction between
the two subjects I am trying to explain here: The structure of our act in the “inner
life”, which he calls the construction, and the structure of the “outer life”,
which he calls the composition. I will use Gabi's terminology to try and make you
understand what I will be talking about in the rest of this essay.

(1) I am referring to all the levels of magical construction: be it the construction

a single trick, a routine, or a full act.
(2) The Magic of Ascanio Vol. 1 “The Structural Conception of Magic
(3) The “inner life” of a magic trick is the actions not perceived by the
audience. As opposed to the “outer life”. For example, in a riffle pass, the
pass would be part of the “inner life”, and the riffling of the cards would
belong to the “outer life”.
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

I learned about this subject, from these two masters: Gabi and Tamariz. And I
think referring you to anything written by them is essential. I will be trying to give
you my conclusions, based on what I have learned, and combined with my
experience and knowledge, not only as a performer, but thanks to my previous
jobs as a script writer for video games, and orchestral music composer.

I want to make it clear that I want to write this essay because I think this should
be an essential subject for the advanced magician, but, at the same time, it is
something that is not really known, or studied, beyond everyone's intuition, solely
because it is subject generally absent subject from magical discussions. My
intention is to go beyond just showing that this is a part of magic that should be
taken into account. By using a real world example, I will show you my way of
composing an act, and the things that I think about, so that they match my
performance style. I don't want you to use my style of composing, but rather I
want you to think about your own. But sometimes I will have to refer to my
personal choices, as I could not explain myself in any other way.

Finally, before you start reading, I have to say that throughout this (really long)
essay I will talk specifically about the structure of routines, acts, or even full
shows. Everything in this essay can be translated to any of those other situations,
so I will jump from one to the other without regard.

The audience senses the structures

The important thing to keep in mind is that the audience will experience our
magical act in a completely different way, not just depending on the individual
components of the act, but also depending of the order in which they are
presented. And you should be aware that while they will not analyze the order at
the end of the act, they will be influenced by what has happened previously.

I will use an example which is not magic related. If you attend different concerts
by your favorite band, you will notice some concerts are better than others. Of
course, some days they will play better than others (undeniably), but the set list
for each occasion will also play a fundamental role. Not only this, but sometimes,
even though the set list was almost the same, but played in a slightly different
order, you would experience every song in a different way. Each song left you in
a certain disposition to face the next one and, at that moment, the structure of a
determined order will create a specific feeling on you.

I said “at that moment” because, as I previously stated, that audience will not
analyze the inner structure at the end of an act, and say “Wow! What an amazing
inner structure! I loved it!”, but they will rather be led by the sensations we create
in them. I want to make this clear because it is one of the theoretical subjects that
Gabi defends with most passion, and one that many people find hardest to grasp:
The magician, knowing the whole structure of a trick, bases his construction and
interpretation on his overall vision.

But I firmly believe (and, hopefully, you will agree with me) that the spectator is
never conscious of the trick's complete structure.
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

− When he sees a trick for the first time, he lives the moment: he is only
affected by what he feels and knows in the moment he is living, because
he doesn't know what will happen next... even if he believes he's “caught”
the magician, everything could be part of the plan (how many sucker tricks
rely on this!), which means that anything could happen...
− But when the trick is finished... he doesn't know what happened! At this
moment, he will try to rewind, and analyze the effect, but the only available
data will be in his immediate memory. Anything not registered in it, does
not exist. That means the audience can only use its immediate memories
to try to reconstruct the trick, and those memories will have been
influenced by you as a magician, their expectations, the structure...
actually, they will never remember the trick “as it was”.
− And, as time goes by, when they try to remember the trick after some days,
they will use their long term memory, which is even less reliable than the
short term one. The result is what Juan Tamariz calls the comet effect.
These are exaggerated memories in which, if the audience was
mesmerized and fascinated by the magic, the effect will become
something short of a miracle (usually impossible to recreate in real life).

So, if a spectator wanted to be conscious of every single aspect of a magic trick

(and I am here speaking of a specific routine, not just a whole session) he would
have to watch it many times, focusing his attention on trying to memorize,
compare and dissect every single detail. That is, he would have to become a
magician.

That's why I think it I really important to notice that, when you are creating a
structure, doing something at a precise moment, or ordering a series of actions
in a certain sequence, you should be thinking about what the spectator is
experiencing at that precise moment: Don't do a false shuffle just because later,
when the spectator rewinds, he will think “Just a sec! Could the aces have been
on top of the deck from the beginning? No, it can't be, he shuffled the deck...” The
reason should be that, right at the moment when the Aces appear, the audience
feels that they are coming out from a shuffled deck.

The audience senses the method

There is one more matter that I believe is important. I will refer to it later, and it
is a concept that took me time to grasp, and even more to understand so clearly
as to explain it here (although now I find it obvious): The audience is affected by
the method.

Throughout my life in magic I've heard many colleagues say that, as long as it
looks clean and fools people, the audience does not care about the method. They
say that this is an internal thing, only for magicians. They think the magician
should only care about the conditions in which the effect is performed, and that
nothing is “seen”. But for the audience, the only thing that matters is the effect,
the rhythm, the presentation... the sentence, made popular by Colombini, that
says “People pay for what they see, not for what they don't see” is misinterpreted,
and used as a sound bite justification. In some extreme cases, I've heard people
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

defend terrible methods, and even outright cheating (stooges, using marked
cards for straight divination effects, etc) by saying that the audience only wants
to “experience the illusion”. To sum up, some people think that, because the
audience is unaware of the trick's secret, they are insensitive to the method.

I completely disagree with this generalized view. Not only do I share Tamariz's
vision, which is that method and effect are the foundations of magic, as opposed
to construction and presentation (I refer you to his lectures, in which he compares
the trick to the skeleton, the construction to the body and the presentation to the
make-up), but I also believe that, if you are composing something for an
audience, you have to take into account everything that might affect them, and
that includes the method.

Every method in magic has some characteristics, and those affect the outer life
of a trick. And those characteristics are perceived by the audience. If you do a
trick that requires you to do an Ascanio spread, the audience doesn't have to
think you are hiding cards from their sight, but they see you take, spread and
move the cards in a certain way. Leaving apart the quality of the secret, as long
as the way you hold and/or move the cards affects the audience's perception of
a certain moment in the routine, they care about the method.

Construction vs. Composition

First, your objective when structuring magic depends on what you are working
on.

If you're working on the construction of magic, that is, on disguising the method,
then throughout your act you must take into account:

− What is the audience thinking of at this moment?

− Am I controlling their attention? Do I need to do it now?
− Could they suspect the method? If so, you have to divert them away
from it.
− If they were trying to find out a method, they shouldn't be able to
imagine one that fits with what they're seeing.
− Can the external actions that I do help me to cover part of the trick's
inner life? Can I have everything set up for the next trick when I finish
this one?
− Do the effects that happen throughout the routine/session empower
each other, so that the overall result is more deceiving?

Conversely, when working on composition, you have to think:

− What does the audience feel at this moment?

− Will they understand the effects that the construction I made has in
store for them? If the sensations I create are very similar to the previous
ones, will they like it? Or maybe it will be too much, and they will get
bored, or even uncomfortable...
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

− Empathy: Try to put yourself in your audience's place. This is

FUNDAMENTAL.
− Try to find the best emotions for them to feel: Conflict, enjoyment,
surprise, astonishment...
− Can you relate this moment to a previous, or later, one so as to
enhance your act's clarity, unity, structure or rhythm?

How does Woody Aragon create a structure?

As I said before, I will use my own choices as a starting point in trying to write
about construction. All of them come from my own personality, concept of magic,
criteria and, first and foremost, my own preferences (which should be the
foundation of your style: what you like to do, and what you don't).

Don't worry, I will not start explaining in detail how I like my magic to be, or what
I try to convey to my audience. This you will see yourself, if you see me perform
some day. Despite the title, this section will not be the typical ego-boosting script
in which a magician speaks about himself for what seem to be ages. I am only
interested in speaking about the things that you can profit from. I will focus on
telling you what do and what I take into account when creating the structure of a
magical act. I will talk about the main things that I keep in mind, but I know that
you might consider different ones in your own personal analysis.

I can basically sum up the whole process in the phrase “Variety in method.
Unity in effect.” Let me explain the three key points in this thinking:

Magic for the sake of impossibility: Some magicians like to present feats of
unearthly skill. Others want to move their audience with poetry, or with the
symbolic images in their magic. Some aim to make people laugh as much as they
are astonished. Others look for spectacular, visual effects. I have nothing against
any of these decisions, but my decision is to do magic just for the sake of pure
impossibility. I am completely convinced that doing, watching and experiencing
something impossible is entertaining / beautiful / powerful / artistic enough so as
not to need any additional window dressing.

So, in words of Simon Aronson, it is not enough for me to know that the
audience cannot figure out how I do my magic, I want them to feel that what they
have just seen cannot be done. And, in order to create that feeling, I use the same
kind of construction for my routines (most of the time). As long as I can do it, and
it adds to the totality of the routine (and I think the ones in this book are an obvious
example), I try to ensure that every time an effect is repeated (even with slight
variations) the method is a different one.

Magicians are keen on building a routine based on a single method (I suppose

we think “well, I've got this nice method here, let's try to get as much of it as I
can”). Three aces travel invisibly and join a fourth one. The method is that the
three aces are double facers… The cannibal cards eat the explorers, and the
explorers disappear. Twice in a row this is accomplished with an Ascanio
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

spread… A Six-phase three card monte, completely based on cards with a double
index... and I could go on and on, naming hundreds of routines.

But if you focus on what you want to convey to your audience, instead of doing
what is the easiest thing for you as a magician, you'll see that many times every
phase of a routine can rely on a different method. And this can actually heighten
its magical power (by means of the theory of false solutions) as well as giving the
routine's outer life the variety I was talking about earlier. But beware, I am not
underestimating the strength and usefulness of using the same method more
than once (McDonald's Aces, for example, bases the three transposition effects
on the use of double facers, and it is a perfect routine just as it is). But I think you
should at least consider if basing a routine's construction on a variety of methods
might improve it.

And I try to go even further. I personally look for methods that, while being
different, have some external feature that helps me to erase, in the audience's
mind, the internal characteristics of the other methods I use.

Let me give you an example. In the spelling routine, most of the phases are
based in the properties of a stack: Red-Black alternation, suit rotation, the rosary
for the final phase... but, in the third phase, not only does the method not rely on
the stack, but it allows for the cards to be fairly shuffled by a spectator. The fact
that the effect happens in the hands of an audience member, and after he shuffles
the deck adds [by means of magical language] something that a hundred false
shuffles could never do for the routine.

Unity: Unity and variety are on the two sides of a scale that should be carefully
monitored. Imagine that you perform a close up show, which runs for over an
hour, completely based on “vanishing coins” effects. It will be a unified show, but
you will probably end up boring your audience. On the other hand, if every trick
in the show uses a different element (coins, cards, ropes, silks, fire...), has a
different size (parlor, stage, close up, illusions...) and a completely different style
(comedy, poetic, manipulation, kid's magic, mentalism...), then there will be
naturally loads of variety... but your audience will end up being confused.

Imagine a concert in which a musician started by playing a ballad on the piano,

then heavy metal with a guitar, then gospel on a trumpet... there would be variety
in the show, but...

When building the structure of an act, you should choose elements related to
each other, or to your personality. Personally, if I build a routine based on a
premise (“the Jokers are influenced by the values of the cards”, “the deck finds
the cards you spell to”) all the effects in the routine should be related to this
theme, so that everything works like a melody and its variations.

I am not completely against “baroque” magic, or routines that start with a

sandwich effect, then a rising card, a triumph and, finally, by having all of the
cards in the deck turn blank (actually, I do perform some of those kind of routines),
but I believe that this makes unity much more difficult to maintain, and you run
the risk of ending up performing what would seem to be a mélange of effects with
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

no apparent external structure. In any case, I think mixing effects is fine if

including a certain magic effect at a determined moment of a routine is the result
of fulfilling the needs of the audience (needs created by our composition, in the
trick's outer life) and adds to the routine's totality. If you can take the effect out
and the rest of the effects in the routine don't notice the difference, then those
previous conditions are not met.

Variety: Variety in method also helps to create a varied act/session, as much

as trying to perform different kind of effects, and looking to convey different
emotions to your audience.

The reason for this is related to what I exposed before, in the “the audience
senses the method” section. Since the method affects your audience because of
what they “see”, using a similar method several times during your act will affect
the audience. I mean, if you abuse a certain technique or grab the cards in a
certain way many times during your show, your audience will become aware of
the frequency and it might get identified as a possible method.

Over ten years ago, I started performing close up shows in which I exclusively
performed my own material. And, at the beginning, the result was a show more
repetitive (and boring) than when I performed tricks from other magicians. Some
of my friends told me “you are only using cards for a long time... you should
perform tricks with different objects”. Their intentions were good, but that was not
the answer to my problem. If I inserted variety only in the external part [what the
audience sees] and not in the internal one [what you convey your audience when
performing] then the root of the problem would still be there. I tried very hard to
find the reason for why this was happening, as the tricks and the emotions I tried
to express were very different (a gambling effect, a divination one,
transformations, cards across...). It took me years to find out the problem: When
you are creating your own tricks, you do it based on your own style, your own
creative resources, and use the methods that you are more comfortable with. In
my case, most of my tricks were based on the use of a mnemonic stack and
mathematics. And, since the methods I used made it necessary to shuffle in a
certain way, or do similar processes like dealing cards in piles... the result was
that, no matter how much variety of the effects I presented, there were some
repetitive actions in every trick that imbued them with a halo of “this is the same
as before”.

Ever since then, every time I am working on a new show, I try to include a
variety of methods in it. A trick based in a stack, then one based on sleight of
hand, another one with trick cards...

Final thoughts:

It might seem as though this article is aimed at the professional, or semi-

professional magicians, who already have, or are building, a complete act. But
actually, one of the most common problems for amateur magicians, who perform
informal magic, is that, when they are requested to perform, they start
improvising, doing trick after trick as one comes to their mind. The problem is, if
your empathy with the audience isn’t good enough, or your repertoire isn’t deep
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

enough, it’s very easy to end up performing effects that, one after the other, are
repetitive, or maybe performing a minor effect after one of greater impact, or
simply by always doing the same tricks, just because being on the spot, there’s
no time to think “What shall I do now…?”.

My advice for magicians in this situation is: following the rules on this article, try
to assemble “small acts” composed of three tricks (a beginning, a second, more
complex trick, and a powerful effect for the ending) suited to the performing
conditions you will find yourselves in. For example, what deck will you be able to
use (stacked deck, normal deck, borrowed/incomplete deck)? Will you use a
table? What’s the environment like (you need to adapt for noisy places where
visual effects are more important than patter)? and so on…

This way, you will organize your tricks into “blocks” whose structure you have
analyzed, and you know that it works. After performing one of them, if you feel
your audience is ready for more, you can always perform another one, or maybe
think of an “encore” trick in advance. If, on the other hand, after one or two tricks
the circumstances you are performing in change, this won’t be a problem at all,
as the same structure might end up leaving your audience “hungry for more”,
which is always a good thing.

This subject could be the subject of a whole book, but I hope this article serves
as an introduction, and also as a way to try to spark your interest. If, after reading
it, you feel like examining and starting to work on this area of your magic, my goal
will be accomplished.
Woody Aragón – Vanishing Inc. Masterclass notes.

THE ROLE OF STUCTURE IN MAGIC (Scheme of the whole article in “A

Book in English”):

- The audience faces the structure: They are affected by it at an

unsconscious level. The only thing that matters is what they feel at
every moment.
- The audience faces the method: They only care about the method's
"external life"
- Construction vs. Composition.

MY WAY TO STRUCTURE:

- Magic for the sake of impossibility.

- Unity in Effect.
- Variety in Method.

COMPOSING TOOLS:

- Linear Structures.
- The importance of number three.
- Plot Thread.
- Three Structures:
o Linear Structure.
o Meter Structure.
o Cyclic Structure.

© Woody Aragón, 2010-2022