Spill the Tea: A Terrible Twist
Lloyd Barnes recently released a new video tutorial on his YouTube channel, promising an “ULTRA visual version of Twisting the Aces!” As a magician who holds Dai Vernon’s original “Twisting the Aces” in high regard—it was, in fact, the first sleight-of-hand trick I learned—this caught my attention immediately. I’m always keen to learn new variations of this classic card magic plot. However, as I watched the short video, my initial excitement quickly turned to disappointment and, eventually, deep dismay.
The tutorial begins with a flashy introduction and this bold claim:
In this tutorial we’ll revolutionise Twisting the Aces and update it for 2024. The gimmicks are easy to build and the visuals are insane. Let’s watch a full performance. Then learn the secret.
| “Twisting the Faces” by Lloyd Barnes. Video Credit: Lloyd Barnes. |
Lloyd then makes the controversial statement that “Twisting the Aces sucks” and argues that “the method doesn’t hold up in 2024.” This assertion is puzzling, to say the least. While the trick is indeed old—first published in Dai Vernon’s More Inner Secrets of Card Magic in 1960—its effectiveness, both in terms of method and effect, remains undiminished. Like the majority of Vernon’s material, it works just as well today as it did all those years ago.
Lloyd then elaborates on his dislike for the original (the emphasis is mine):
“All those weird counts. Those unnatural moves and the fact that its not visual make it a no go. But I’m not going to sit here and complain without providing a solution.”
So, what’s Lloyd’s proposed solution? Brace yourself: it involves four identical double-faced playing cards, three double-backers and some invisible elastic thread. No, I’m not joking. Its enough to make poor Vernon turn in his grave (or should that be twist?)!
While Lloyd is entitled to his opinion and free to teach his own method for “Twisting the Aces”, suggesting that this over-engineered monstrosity improves upon Vernon’s masterpiece is, frankly, absurd. Lloyd has created a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. Let me elaborate.
In my view, the beauty of Vernon’s original “Twisting the Aces” lies in its elegant simplicity and the skill required to perform it effectively. In the original description of the effect by Lewis Ganson, Dai presents the trick as a feat of manipulation, as the suggested patter demonstrates:
“Very few people realise that the Ace of Spades, being a conspicuous card, is difficult to manipulate—I’ll demonstrate what I mean.”
This premise, that the Ace of Spades is more difficult to control than the other three Aces, is what Vernon uses to justify the handling. What Lloyd erroneously labels as “weird counts” and “unnatural moves” are all perfectly justified, as highlighted by the following passage from More Inner Secrets of Card Magic:
“The manner in which the cards are handled throughout gives the impression of everything being performed at the finger tips, permitting a clear view of the cards the whole time, and apparently emphasising that all is fair and straightforward.”
The Naturalness Debate
The crux of Lloyd’s argument is based on the supposed unnaturalness of the Elmsley Count. In the comments section of the video, he elaborates on his opinion:
That’s the downfall of thinking like a magician, unnaturally. Hand four cards to a lay person and ask them to count them. They won’t do anything like an Elmsley Count at all. It’s just so odd to do. They just spread them and count four.
Lloyd further defines his personal perspective on naturalness in magic:
“My take on what the word ‘Natural’ means in the context of magic; to me, it means handling objects like a regular person. Not how all other magicians do. And sometimes, that means tearing up the rule book. Which is a good thing, more often than not.”
If your definition of “being natural” is always handling objects like a regular person, then yes, the Elmsley Count is unnatural. However, by this definition, any refined handling or flourish, such as a one-handed cut, a fan or ribbon spread, is not natural. Even holding a deck in mechanics or end grip is unnatural because this isn’t how most people would grip a pack of cards. Following this line of thought to its logical conclusion, almost everything a magician does is unnatural, given such a broad and unhelpful definition of the word.
While Lloyd’s argument may seem compelling at first glance, it suffers from two significant flaws:
- The myth of the “regular person”: There’s no universal standard for how people handle objects.
- Ignoring context: What appears unnatural in one situation can be perfectly justified in another.
Who are these regular people that Lloyd mentions? I don’t think they exist. Generally speaking, someone who plays cards will be more comfortable when asked to shuffle or cut the deck. For example, most poker players can confidently riffle shuffle cards. However, a person who has never played cards will handle them clumsily, often dropping them while shuffling. These two people will, most likely, count cards in vastly different ways. I’d assume the poker player would deal the four cards to the table, while the non-card player might spread the cards or count them from hand to hand.
More significantly, this argument ignores context entirely. What is unnatural in one situation can appear perfectly natural in another. For example, take the false transfer of a coin from one hand to the other. Magicians, such as Mike Close and Jamy Ian Swiss, have correctly pointed out that people rarely move items from hand to hand in this way.
However, if you move the coin to free up your right hand so you can pick up an object, such as a glass or magic wand, the unnatural becomes natural. Thanks to the in-transit action, the false transfer is fully justified. Or, as Jamy Ian Swiss puts it, you’ve successfully cloaked the contrived action in a veneer of naturalness. Jamy doesn’t call this approach naturalness but supra-naturalness. In the video, Lloyd refers to literal naturalness, which isn’t always what we should aim for if we want our sleight of hand to be deceptive.
When a magician handles a deck of cards, the audience’s expectations play a crucial role in what they perceive as a “natural” action. Spectators expect a magician to handle cards with finesse, an expectation that extends to others who frequently work with cards, such as croupiers or even professional card cheats. In the context of a magic performance, especially one that overtly demonstrates card manipulation like “Twisting the Aces”, the audience readily accepts a higher level of dexterity as natural.
The key to this acceptance lies in the execution. As long as the actions are well-executed, the audience will perceive them as natural within the framework of a magic performance.
In essence, what constitutes “natural” in a magic performance differs significantly from what might be considered natural in everyday life. The audience’s willingness to accept refined card handling as natural for a magician creates a context in which techniques like the Elmsley Count can be both deceptive and perceived as normal. This understanding of contextual naturalness is crucial when evaluating the effectiveness of classic routines like Vernon’s “Twisting the Aces”.
In addition to this, the Elmsley Count in “Twisting the Aces” isn’t primarily used for counting. It’s a display technique. You’ve already demonstrated you’re using only four cards by holding two in each hand. The Elmsley Count proves each Ace is face down before it’s twisted face up. The cards are not being counted; they’re being displayed at the fingertips. In this context, the move is both natural and justified.
Finally, Lloyd’s variation displays the cards in a vertical spread, a configuration that would never be used by anyone but a magician. Whether this is more natural than an Elmsley Count is debatable.
Vernon’s “Be Natural” Philosophy
Dai Vernon, the creator of “Twisting the Aces”, famously told magicians to “be natural.” He repeated this advice so often that it has become inextricably linked to his name. Vernon’s use of the Elmsley Count in his routines is a clear demonstration of his belief in its naturalness. In More Inner Secrets of Card Magic, Lewis Ganson notes that Vernon immediately recognised the move’s value after Alex Elmsley shared it with him in a letter and incorporated it into several of his routines. If the move was unnatural, wouldn’t it be odd for a man whose motto was “be natural” to use it?
The concept of naturalness in Vernon’s philosophy is far more nuanced than Lloyd’s one-dimensional interpretation. The Vernon Touch reveals that the Professor used this phrase in three distinct ways:
- Literally: As in “naturally speaking” or “he’s a naturally funny guy.”
- Natural in Manner: How one interacts with others, being authentic rather than imitative.
- Natural in Behaviour: Disguising sleight of hand through relaxed, unhurried actions.
When Vernon advised his fellow magicians to “be natural,” he primarily meant “be yourself.” This principle discouraged imitating others or affecting a false persona. For instance, he believed that natural comedians should leverage their humour in magic, while those without comedic talent should avoid forced attempts at humour.
Vernon also emphasised the importance of natural behaviour in performance, though perhaps less frequently than one might expect. He maintained that even unconventional moves could appear natural if executed slowly, confidently, and without tension. In this context, Vernon believed that seemingly illogical actions could still be perceived as natural.
An Unhealthy Obsession with Visual Magic
Lloyd’s second major criticism of “Twisting the Aces” is its alleged lack of visual appeal. This assessment, however, seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what constitutes visual magic. Contrary to Lloyd’s claim, Vernon’s “Twisting the Aces” is fundamentally a visual effect, albeit one that challenges conventional definitions.
To better understand this perspective, let’s consider a definition of visual magic proposed by Justin Higham, a well-respected London-based magician and writer:
Many magicians think of visual magic as that which takes place in front of the eyes and is self-evident: something levitates or the Ace of Spades visually changes to the King of Hearts. But if we use our definition above – that visual magic may include any effect not requiring verbal explanation for people to be amazed by the outcome – then we have a broader perspective.
This broader perspective is crucial when evaluating “Twisting the Aces”. A visual effect, by this definition, is any trick that can be fully appreciated and understood without verbal explanation. While the patter in “Twisting the Aces” certainly enhances the presentation—clarifying how the four Aces magically turn face-up one at a time—it isn’t essential.
When performed skillfully, the successive reversal of each Ace speaks for itself. This makes it a prime example of visual magic, despite its lack of flashy gimmicks or elaborate setups that some might associate with “visual” effects.
It’s important to note that this understanding of visual magic doesn’t diminish the value of patter or verbal presentation. Rather, it highlights the strength of effects that can stand on their own, with or without accompanying words. “Twisting the Aces” benefits greatly when you add some kind of meaningful presentation to it through scripting. Justin appears to agree with me. Here’s what he has to say on the matter:
‘Twisting the Aces’ is highly visual in effect and is an excellent trick. There are countless variations, both in method and effect. But after all these years (nearly 60) it is still a trick in need of a plot; something that justifies or enhances the visual action. Possible plots could include ‘the hand is quicker than the eye – without you seeing, a magician can turn cards over and back again’ and ‘what would life be like in a two-dimensional world?’. But we haven’t explained why we would want to turn cards over through magic.
I’ve previously written a whole article on three different ways to strengthen “Twisting the Aces” through scriptwriting (see Twisting the Aces Three Ways). For a deeper exploration of the relationship between visual and cerebral magic, readers are encouraged to explore Justin Higham’s work, particularly his article Visual vs Cerebral Magic.
Lloyd clearly doesn’t consider “Twisting the Aces” a visual trick, so let’s entertain his perspective for a moment. Even if we grant this assumption, we must ask: Does the trick truly need to be more visual?
Purely visual effects, while often impressive at first glance, can sometimes lack the depth and engagement that more nuanced routines offer. These flashy, quick-to-resolve tricks may dazzle momentarily, but they often leave little room for audience interaction or lasting impact. Their brevity can rob spectators of the chance to fully invest in the magical experience.
Moreover, the current trend towards highly visual magic might stem from a desire for quick, easily digestible content rather than a pursuit of true magical artistry. Such effects require less effort in terms of plot development and presentation, making them attractive to performers seeking instant gratification or easy social media content.
However, “Twisting the Aces”, with its layered approach, offers something more profound. It engages the audience on multiple levels–visual, intellectual, and emotional. The routine’s pacing allows for buildup, creating anticipation and enabling spectators to become active participants in the unfolding mystery. This engagement is often more memorable and impactful than a fleeting visual spectacle.
There is one visual version of “Twisting the Aces” that I consider to be as good as the original. In fact, it is arguably better to perform for a larger group because the cards are held at chest height. I am, of course, talking about Guy Hollingworth’s “Waving the Aces”:
| “Waving the Aces” by Guy Hollingworth. Video Credit: MagicWeek via YouTube. |
In essence, while visual appeal certainly has its place in magic, it shouldn’t be pursued at the expense of depth, engagement, and lasting impact. “Twisting the Aces” exemplifies how a well-constructed routine can captivate an audience without relying solely on visual flash, demonstrating the enduring power of thoughtful, multilayered magic.
This obsession with making every trick MEGA, SUPER, or ULTRA visual is unhealthy and does not necessarily benefit the person experiencing the magic. It also contributes to what I’ve started calling the enshittification of magic.
The Enshittification of Magic 💩
Cory Doctorow coined the term “enshittification” to describe the progressive decline of online platforms over time:
“Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification.”
Intriguingly, we can observe a similar pattern in the world of magic, particularly with classic tricks like “Twisting the Aces”.
- Creation: A magician invents a trick that provides a genuinely magical experience for spectators.
- Improvement: Another magician creates a supposedly “improved” version, convincing peers that it enhances the magical experience.
- Value Shift: This “improvement” often shifts value away from the audience and performers, benefiting magic creators and producers instead.
- Commercialisation: The trick becomes a product, marketed to magicians as the latest must-have effect.
Lloyd’s version of “Twisting the Aces” exemplifies this process. While he’s not directly charging for the method, it serves as a gateway to his Patreon membership. This approach is also emblematic of effects that major magic producers might acquire and mass-market to magicians.
The irony is that audiences would likely have a more profound magical experience with the Vernon original. The classic routine offers greater opportunities for interaction and genuine amazement, elements often sacrificed in pursuit of visual spectacle. Purely visual magic, while initially striking, frequently leads spectators to a single, unsatisfying conclusion: trick cards must be in use (which is true in this case). This superficial approach undermines the very essence of magic—the creation of seemingly impossible experiences that defy all explanation.
In our quest for innovation, we must be cautious not to “enshittify” classic effects. True advancement in magic should enhance the audience’s experience, not diminish it in favour of marketability or visual shock value. As magicians, our primary goal should be to create genuine wonder, not just momentary visual surprises.
While the trend towards flashier, more visual magic is a significant factor in the potential degradation of classic effects, several other elements contribute to this phenomenon. Let’s explore these factors in depth:
Misguided Improvements
Many attempts to “improve” classic tricks often make them worse. In pursuit of novelty or visual appeal, magicians may add unnecessary complexity, losing the elegant simplicity that made the original effect powerful. These changes can disrupt the psychological construction of the trick, reducing its impact on the audience.
The current trend in magic heavily favours purely visual effects, often at the expense of other equally important aspects. While visual magic can be stunning, overemphasising it can lead to shallow performances that lack depth, audience connection, and lasting impact. Magicians must recognise that magic happens in the spectator’s mind, not just before their eyes.
Disregard for Classics
A lack of respect for classic effects and their creators is increasingly evident in modern magic. Many newcomers to the field may dismiss older tricks as outdated without fully understanding their merits. This disregard often stems from a failure to appreciate the psychological principles and time-tested methods embedded in these classics. Vernon’s “Twisting the Aces” is a prime example of a routine that has stood the test of time due to its solid construction. It’s worth studying even if you choose not to perform it.
Superficial Understanding of Magic Theory
Modern magicians often have a surface-level grasp of magic theory. Without a thorough understanding of misdirection, psychology, and the principles of deception, attempts to improve tricks often fall flat. This superficial knowledge can result in effects that may look flashy but fail to create true wonder or amazement.
Egocentrism in Magic
An egocentric approach to magic, where the performer’s skills or cleverness take centre stage rather than the magical experience, can significantly detract from an effect’s impact. This self-focused perspective often leads to unnecessary flourishes or complexities, adding tricks that serve more to showcase the magician’s dexterity than to enhance the audience’s sense of wonder. In contrast, master magicians like Dai Vernon emphasised the importance of making the magic, not the magician, the star of the show.
These factors, individually and collectively, contribute to the “enshittification” of magic. They represent a shift away from the core principles that make magic a unique and powerful art form. As magicians, it’s imperative to be aware of these pitfalls and strive to create or perform magic that prioritises the audience’s experience of wonder and astonishment.
In the case of “Twisting the Aces”, Vernon’s original routine demonstrates he had a deep understanding of these principles. It respects the audience’s intelligence, engages them on multiple levels, and creates a truly magical experience without relying on visual gimmickry. As we innovate and create new magic, we would do well to learn from such classics, understanding what makes them endure before attempting to “improve” upon them.
In Conclusion
Lloyd’s version of Dai Vernon’s “Twisting the Aces” is solving a non-existent problem. His two arguments, that the Elmsley Count is unnatural and the trick isn’t visual, are both false.
Add to this a convoluted method that requires four identical double-faced playing cards, three double-backers, and some invisible elastic thread, and you have an effect that is at best impractical. The trick cannot be performed in strong lighting, as it might cause reflections on the invisible elastic thread. (Admittedly, this issue could be partially avoided by splitting cards and spending much longer building the three fekes, or being careful where you perform the effect.)
Using three heavily gaffed cards also makes the packet seven cards thick! Trying to pass such a packet off as four cards is difficult, if not impossible. In fact, telling yourself that people won’t notice the extra thickness is self-delusional.
For me, this extra thickness is the biggest problem. “Twisting the Aces” becomes an even stronger trick when you tell your spectators to “watch the edges of the packet.” This small suggestion makes a massive difference to the trick’s impact. With Vernon’s original method, you can confidently invite people to scrutinise the edges of the packet, knowing that it will only add to the mystery and wonder of the trick. The same cannot be said of Lloyd’s version. There is no way to invite people to look at the extra-thick edges of the packet without tipping off the method.
The original method is completely impromptu and angle-proof, allowing it to be performed in any lighting conditions. You also start and end with four regular playing cards. This means you can quickly move on to another trick using the same four cards, such as “The Last Trick of Dr. Jacob Daley”, or hand the cards out for immediate examination. With Lloyd’s “improved” version, you have to switch the packet at the end of the routine to do either of these two things.
However, I’m not opposed to the use of gaffs, even when it comes to “Twisting the Aces”. Eric Jones has a wonderful gimmicked card called “Twizted”, which has been recently rereleased by Ellusionist as “Twizted 2.0” (I bought the original over ten years ago). It is very similar to the one Lloyd builds in the video. You can use the Twizted gimmick to perform a trick similar in feel to Hollingworth’s “Waving the Aces”, as well as many other impressive routines. The big difference is that all of Eric’s routines only use one gimmicked card. This provides eye-popping visuals similar to Lloyd’s trick, but without the burden of an overly thick packet.
| “Twizted” by Eric Jones. Video Credit: Eric Jones via YouTube. |
While visually striking, Lloyd’s version of “Twisting the Aces” sacrifices the essence of what makes the original so compelling. However, I will concede that this trick would look good as a piece of social media magic on a site like TikTok or Instagram (so long as the gimmicks are well-made). I don’t doubt that Lloyd performs this trick for live audiences, IRL (In Real Life). He probably also gets a good reaction from it. However, the price you pay to make this trick more visual is enormous. I also think it is factually incorrect to label the original method for “Twisting the Aces” as weak. It isn’t. If Lloyd had released this video without suggesting that his version of the plot was revolutionary and that the original was somehow fatally flawed, then I most likely would not have written such a damning post about his trick.
The original “Twisting the Aces” is a masterpiece of card magic for good reason. Its strength lies in its simplicity and the ability to immediately prove the use of only four regular cards at the conclusion. This transparency is what truly impresses laypeople.
While the Elmsley Count may seem unnatural to some, when executed skillfully, it’s a thing of supra-natural beauty. Magicians are expected to handle cards with greater finesse than the average person—that’s part of the art. The false count isn’t meant to mimic casual counting, but rather to display the cards as fairly as possible.
The proposed alternative, while creative, overcomplicates a classic effect. It sacrifices the elegant simplicity and economy of motion that make the original so powerful. Innovation in magic is commendable, but not when it comes at the cost of what makes a trick truly magical in the eyes of the audience.
Critiquing effects is part of advancing our art, but dismissing a proven classic without substantial justification doesn’t contribute meaningfully to that discourse. Let’s focus on what makes great magic resonate with audiences and build upon those principles rather than discarding them.
Am I being unfair to Lloyd? Do you agree that he’s enshittified Dai Vernon’s “Twisting the Aces”? 💩 I’d love to hear what you think, so please post your comments below.
Learn “Tongue Twister” for FREE
A few months ago, I shared my personal take on “Twisting the Aces” in my Ruseletter, in a regular column I call Vernonesque.
Learn “Tongue Twister” today! 👈
Subscribe to Lloyd’s YouTube Channel
Believe it or not, I usually enjoy Lloyd’s contributions. He’s a clever and generous magician (although he has been caught up in more than his fair share of controversies). If you like DIY gaff-based magic, I strongly recommend you subscribe to his YouTube channel.
Comments
Post a Comment