Thankyou Whit.

Tom Frank's, "The Legend of the Five Mystic Rings DVD" seems to be the place to get Jack Miller's routine today. I managed to find DF's RIYF for only 19GBP, so really happy about that.


Please don't take offence you did not appear in my list. I loved watching the video stream you posted.

I.... also had a thought about it, ahem, not that I'd suggest it could be regarded as an "improvement", as I'm not nearly so experienced, as your right honourable self, however, it was a thought I had, and (if nothing else) I'll learn something from all the flames I get for sharing it....

I was wondering how it would play to have two suck...spectators on stage. One either side of you. One starting with two linked rings, the other not. This would allow you to turn, as you do in the routine, but find all parties succeeding very nicely ? If I'd "got my act together", I'd be able to give it a try and report - but I'm a month or so at least from that possibility.

Thanks again

Thanks for your input, Pro-Digitous. No flames. I like people who think about new ways of looking at things. I just don't see the advantage. What would the second spectator add? What problem would having a second spectator solve?

If it is not an improvement, than there would be no reason to make a change.

The only reason to change a routine is to improve it. I don't see how it adds to the routine. It would probably split focus much worse than the routine already does--one of the inherent weaknesses in the routine.

This doesn't fix that problem, it makes it worse. The audience is going to have to choose which of three people it is going to watch. Plus, would you need to change it to a six ring routine? Two for each of the participants? That would change all of the handling and counts.

What is the final payoff with the second spectator? Do you send them both back to their seats at the same time? Do you do a finish with six rings (key, 3 singles, chain of two)? This set of rings would complicate the ending--how do you make a chain of six with this set?

Would both spectators be "keeping up" with the performer? It seems like it would make things awfully confusing, complicated and much more difficult for the performer.

If you are just learning the routine, I always advise that you learn it exactly the way it is written and perform it that way for a while until you really understand the routine and why it is written the way it is. You add your own personality to the routine, as I added this new character to my old routine--but you don't change the routine without a compelling reason.

I began doing this routine in 1968, and have been working on it, polishing it, and perfecting it all the time since. It has been performed on street corners and for crowds of 8,000 people. It has been on television shows, cruise ship and night club stages, children's shows, trade and industrial shows, amusement parks, comedy clubs--you name it.

It can be improved, changed around, or re-worked in many ways. I have tried a lot of them. But before you do that, you might want to suck the more than thirty-five years of experience out of what is already there.

You do that by performing it the way it is in front of a lot of people until you understand all the "whys" of the moves and lines. Some of the lines are only there to answer heckles or questions or problems that might come up. These you will not even understand until the situation they were intended for crops up for you in performance. Remember, you will have all kinds of spectator assistants, and all kinds of audiences. Some spectators will not catch on to the bit, others will be insisting on telling you that their two rings did not come apart, others will be tying themselves in knots with the rings--putting their heads and arms throught them and being silly. This routine is set up to handle all of that elegantly.

When it does, you will smile and say, "Whoa, Whit took the hit for me on this one..."

A second spectator will add whole new dimensions of problems. What if he decides to tell you that the guy behind you isn't keeping up?

I'm really glad I made that post - and thanks very much for such a complete and, I think, brilliant reply.

I have to stress again, I didn't think I'd actually be adding anything, but I had this notion and wanted to share it - just for the sake of it.

It's not meant to be "sucky", but you don't look remotely old enough to have been doing this routine in 1968 (unless you were 2 at the time?). When I watched the stream I felt I seen it somewhere before. I didn't think at the time that you could have been been the performer

I take on board all your points completely, a couple I'd not even considered. And I'll take your general advice to heart too: do the route as taught, until my performances suggest a change is necessary.

Again - I hope no-one mis-interpret this as me trying to advise or criticise, that was not where this come from at all. I don't have a mentor, so sometimes my duff ideas go public before I've had chance to check myself.

Pro-digitous:

I think it is important to discuss these things. I enjoy arguing points about magic, and never take anything personally. I am as critical of my own routines as anyone I've ever met.

It is good to bounce ideas off a wall, especially one like this. The Café is a great, great resource.

I thought you were very respectful and mannerly in your question and suggestions. That is why I took them so seriously. It is also helpful to me when I have some new idea to analyze. Even if it doesn't seem likely to work, an idea like yours can be stimulating and helps me better formulate my ideas, as well as being thought-provoking. Who knows where it could lead?

Thanks.

The discipline of critical theological inquiry has its way of creeping in everywhere doesn't it Whit. ;>)

In old California they called it "Mission Creep."

Er, "critical theological inquiry", "Mission Creep." ?

Please enlighten me - this sounds like an "in-joke" (and I'd like to be in?)

Also, I need 50 posts before I can take up Bill's offer on his Hocvs Pocvs C&B routine

If anyone would care to ask "me" a couple-a questions I'd be more than happy to post a couple of replies

Evangelion was making a reference to my background in philosophy and theology. My undergraduate degree was in Philosophy and Comparative Religion. I studied for the Episcopal ministry at Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria, Va in the early Seventies. I was never ordained. I dropped out in my last year of graduate school to do magic full time--practically single-handedly saving the Anglican communion. Couldn't deal with the idea of having a boss, much less more than a hundred of them...

The "mission creep" was a reference to California history and the awful subjugation of the native peoples in the Spanish "missions," as well as to the tendency of military and political initiatives to grow bigger and broader as they "progress."

It wasn't really that funny. Just kind of knowing winks between a man of the cloth and a "spoiled" ordinand.

Do you really only need two more posts, Pro-digitous?

Well, yes - I did Whit, thou I think now it's only one

Philosophy and Comparative Religion - that's amazing... Have you read the Dan Brown fiction, "The Da Vinci Code" ? I was so intrigued I bought the "Real History Behind The Da Vinci Code" as well. Fascinating stuff.

I won't go on about any of that here. Not only is it "off topic", I might have my post disallowed by inadvertently breaking a rule on posting and religion. (and that would never do )

Still facinating - and you started performing magic for real, it's a great beginning. Has it's own storey like qualities.

I have read it. Liked his earlier book better. But it is not very deep--not even as deep as Anne Rice's vampire novels. Just fun.

What other books have you read recently?

Whit... my dear fellow... I'm starting to feel quite (can I say fond?)... well disposed to you

In fact I'm going to order, "The School for Scoundrels Notes on Fast and Loose", (not to mension the real 3 Card Monte) from that jolly fine web-site http://www.chefanton.com/scoundrelsstore at my first convenience.

To actually answer this question (though I feel a certain lackadaisical attitude in doing so, can't think why) : "Blooming English" Kate Burridge; "Accommodating Broccoli In The Cemetery" Vivian Cook; and "Eats Shoots and Leaves" Lynne Truss.

These are "funny" books about language, spelling and punctuation. Seems like an odd concept now I come to tell someone else. The choices were inspired by my wife, who's a linguist.

Also read the latest "Harry Potter". I have a good idea who RAB is, where he's been lately, and how he's connected to the Half Blood Prince. (but if you’re not into Harry Potter this will all appear as just so much drivel).

Thank you again Whit. If I reach your level of magical achievement, I hope I can do so with the same humility and suave.

Yes, Whit, but now as Soapy you play a bishop of the secular school rather the sacred. A situation which at times some would consider a more noble calling.

BTW, did you mean Brown's "Angels and Demons".

I like to think of myself as a "minister of mistrust."

Pro-digitous:

"Eats, Shoots and Leaves" is a great book. My wife gave it to me for Christmas. Who would have thought that grammar could be such fun! I can't believe how many smiles and outright guffaws her writing produced. My wife is not a linguist, though. She is a banker.

I learned a lot from that book! I feel that I am becoming a very cunning linguist myself.

My wife bought it for herself. A great book indeed!

Grammar is always fun. Remember all those Abbott and Costello bits and Leo Gorsey, Jr..

I've been using the Jack Miller routine for 25 years as my closer and it always has a powerful effect. Tannen's put out the booklet, don't know if they still have it in print, but it can be found on internet--ABE Books.

For me personally, I looked at a bunch of other routines, but Jack Miller's seemed the most logical and strongest. Took a lot of time to learn from the book, a lot of practice. . . but well worth it.

Have you heard that:
Time flys like a whirl-wind but fruit flys like a banana.

This is frequently used as a test of language parsing systems in artificial intelligence. Most often,

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

How you interpret "flies", "like", and "fruit flies" gives over 20 different, grammatically correct, interpretations of the phrase. Only one makes sense, to us, and this is the crux of the test.

An interesting turn of a phrase.

An additional comment about the Jack Miller routine. I got my rings from the man who taught me magic; he bought them in Tannen's in the 1940's and was taught personally by Jack Miller, who was a demonstrator there (and I think in his 70's at the time). Anyway, I closed my act with them for year after year; then while rehearsing one day, one ring on the two-ring set broke on the seam. I'm not handy, but my mechanic is.He'd also seen me do the rings. I took the ring to him and he welded it together. When he gave it back to me, he said,"There. Now they're never going to get apart."

A few months later he was at one of my shows and sure enough, afterwards he came up, scratching his head and said,"Well, I never thought you'd be able to separate them, and I still can't figure out how you did it." That's about all I needed to hear about the Jack Miller routine to make it darn near gospel for me. Further, I could never have thought up my own routine; also, the Fitzkee book was either too abstract of convoluted or something, but after I bought it and looked it over, I never consulted it again.