David Regal review

From Genii (Dec 2003) , David Regal's review of Paul Gordon's Card Magic Companion:

FIRST THINGS FIRST. Anyone who picks up a Paul Gordon book is immediately struck by the fact that he comes off as some sort of strange English bastard son of Harry Lorayne on acid. This is, I think, somewhat intentional, as he is a fan of Harry Lorayne. In fact, the name "Harry Lorayne" appears more times in this book than in a book by Harry Lorayne. Its all disquieting. Even more so is
that Mr. Gordon seems to have a healthier ego than Harry Lorayne, and far too much of the Card Magic Companions text contains flattering comments about himself, and plugs for his other books.

I was hampered in my efforts to enjoy this book by the above, as well as by my dislike of things such as Reverse-Faros and the Duck and Deal Procedure. I realize there are respected card magicians who have no problem with such things, but as I've become more pigheaded I've decided there is a lack of magical sensation associated with those rituals. Unfortunately, a huge portion of this book, about
a third of its contents, involves tricks that use those procedures. Many other effects use the Braue Reversal, a move that, at most, should be used sparingly. When I saw Ricky Jay's show 52 Assistants
I was struck by the fact that in an evening of card magic, one never got the feeling one was seeing the same effect twice. In this book, too many of the effects are interchangeable, and in some cases I had
difficulty understanding how the effect would be understood by the audience or what, precisely, the effect would be. Mr. Gordon aims to deliver to-the-point descriptions of card effects, which is fine, but
the idea behind a "just give 'em the meat" approach to magic instruction only works when there is meat to be given. Here, there is a paucity of anything new. I am a lover of effect, and applaud both
technical excellence and the use of subtlety or simplicity to deliver that effect, but here there is a rough-hewn approach to method, and nothing to communicate the intent of the presentation. Mr. Gordon
shrugs off the importance of including this type of material, saying at one point, "Do I have to give you patter guidelines? Nah … didn't think so." As I said earlier, I am of the opinion that the one area
sorely lacking in development as we decry the explosion of magical information is the area of presentation, and the technique/art of giving meaning to magical effects.


The credits in this book are not good. In an Ambitious Card routine, he omits credit to Wesley James for his now near-standard sequence. When describing the Benzais Spin Cut he mentions laying
the halves together in an un-squared condition, stating of that touch, which has been used by magicians for decades, "And, I believe, it's mine." In his effect "It's a Miracle" he says, "Many moons ago, I was shown a trick by a magician ... I don't recall the magician's name, but I do remember that the original trick wasn't his." He then describes a minor variation of John Bannon's modern classic "Discrepancy City Prediction" without a mention of Bannon. He even writes up a version of Roy Walton's brilliant "Oil and Queens" plot without mentioning Walton. Of his own tricks, he has no shortage of praise, saying such things as "... one of the strongest tricks in print" and "...simply the fastest revelation of a four-of-a-kind (in fact, two four-ofa- kinds) extant." He calls "Teser," "The only totally impromptu handling of Paul Harris's 'Reset'," but as far as I know, "Reset" has always been impromptu, using eight cards openly removed from an ordinary deck. A typical comment is the following Gordian knot: "This trick is certainly one of my personal favorites. In fact, it is definitely one of your favorites; or at least, it should be."

Mr. Gordon states, "This book and my four other major tomes... are really all you need to learn and perform top-quality (excuse modesty) card magic." I imagine this is a typographical error, as it is
not "modesty" that needs be excused. That which does beg to be excused, is not.