The Curse of Lpst Kands' Gold: Tales of Misfortune and Tragedy

The topic "Lost Hands: The Golden Curse" explores a mysterious curse that has befallen a group of people who have lost their hands. The curse is said to have been brought upon them by a golden object that they came into possession of. This golden object is said to have ancient and powerful properties that when touched, it removes the hands of its owner and passes the curse onto them. The curse is rumored to have originated many centuries ago, in an ancient civilization where the golden object was revered as a sacred artifact. It is said that those who were chosen to possess the object were blessed with great power and wealth, but at a great cost. They would eventually lose their hands and be forced to pass on the curse to another.

Let’s look at both types of magic — interactive magic and group magic shows — so that you can make a confident decision on the right service for your event.

This type of magic is very personal and engaging, as the magician interacts with each person individually, calls on them by name and performs tricks that can be seen up close, right before their eyes. This type of magic is very personal and engaging, as the magician interacts with each person individually, calls on them by name and performs tricks that can be seen up close, right before their eyes.

They would eventually lose their hands and be forced to pass on the curse to another. The curse is said to have been unleashed upon the current group of individuals when they discovered the golden object in an ancient tomb. As they touched it, their hands were instantly severed and the curse was activated.

Magic performances in close proximity

I just read another article about a magician dumping his illusions in exchange for close-up magic with a camera and big screens on stage. I know that there will never come a day when no magician anywhere in the world will be doing stage illusions. I'm just looking for a little encouragement and affirmation.

There is a segment out there who believe street magic (with camera tricks) is a much more "evolved" type of magic. I don't believe one style of magic is better than another (except camera tricks are wrong anytime). BUT it bothers me when I hear my babies- I mean illusions - described as "big box tricks" (I guess that is meant to be an insult like "Big box stores".)

I love the Vegas style illusions, with the sequins and lights. Does that make me underdeveloped and out-of-date??

Not in my opinion.

It is different strokes for different folks. Like music, there are many different types of genres of magic and many different audiences that enjoy one or more of them. Similarly, there are magicians who enjoy certain types of magic and dislike others.

I'd say, if you enjoy a style and there is a market, then let the others do what they want and you do what you want.

If I am paying vegas type prices to see a show. I don't want to see anything on a screen.
You may as well be at home with the TV.

I really hate going to a theatre expecting to see a great stage show and all I get is close up and mostly card tricks at that with cameras!

This has happened at many of the magic conventions I have attended as well as other venues including a very large name that we went to see last summer.

It also amazes me how many of the big names I have went to see who do the vanishing bandana.

When I pay big bucks to go to a theatre to see a magic show, I kind of expect a bit more than what I would see at a birthday party.

I really think the modern day thought by many of the big guys is that it is much easier to travel with a briefcase with cards, coins and rope and use the venues projection system than it is to transport big equipment.

To each their own , this is just my thoughts.

Here's my opinion on this.

I think "examinable" and "personal" Magic is the wave of the future as audiences become much more aware of Magic methodology.

Big or small effects.

Watch David Copperfield's shows nowadays. Actual audience members are onstage checking out everything.

It makes everything even more expensive however, thus the reason for Magicians turning to "close up" and "street magic" as it is the least expensive way of doing this.

Well, things change the way they change.

Adapt if you want to.

Don't confuse the marketing of tricks for profit with the real art of performing magic. Street magic is a marketing tool to get more sales in the very small market of magic. While guys are running around the streets, real performers are making real money performing shows.

If you have watched America's Got Talent, unless they have giant illusions they are out of the contest. What does that say, without saying anything?

It all boils down to doing what you like doing and don't listen to anyone else. There is a place for Close-up Magic. As many professional have cut a niche in a market for themselves.

Don't believe everything you read, it is only someones opinion, without facts, no one knows the future until it is here.

I agree with many of the points made by The Great Nancini and wmhegbli. As someone who does not devise or perform card tricks, I view this sector of magic primarily as a spectator (albeit one who has some knowledge of how the trick is performed). From this viewpoint, close-up card tricks always look more spectacular to me when they are performed close-up. I may be wrong, but I always thought that there was a clue to the reason for this in the term 'close-up'.

It also allows a type of interaction that cannot be replicated on stage and which is often a key element of close-up work. In addition to this, the close proximity of the performer to the spectator leaves little margin for error and thus allows a true artiste to far-better showcase their skills.

An example of this would be a double-lift that is far more forgiving on-stage (even when projected onto a screen) than it is when performed close enough for the spectator to reach out and touch the spokes of the bicycle on the back of the card.

Like Nancini, I hope that any theatrical performances that I see will be truly theatrical and I do not really want to see card or coin magic in that setting. Similarly, I would not expect to see an illusionist pushing Zig-Zag from table to table in a restaurant.

Having said that I do not like seeing close-up magic on stage, I should make it clear that I do enjoy witnessing such performances in more intimate surroundings - where I am more than happy to pay to see them.

It is all to do with location. Unfortunately, there are many performers who do not take this aspect into account when staging their act.

Think out of the box and try adapting stage and parlor effects to the close up setting.
You'd be surprised how many of the larger illusions and effects can be miniaturized and successfully brought to the appropriate setting.

But it all fits your style and preferred type of magic.

On 2012-05-01 10:46, Ekuth wrote:
Think out of the box and try adapting stage and parlor effects to the close up setting.
You'd be surprised how many of the larger illusions and effects can be miniaturized and successfully brought to the appropriate setting.

Quite right. The point I am making is that a direct transfer of close-up to stage is not the best way to go and is rarely completely effective. There is however no problem with a cross-over of card magic to stage or stage magic to close-up, provided that the effect is designed for that environment - and I do not mean just projecting it onto a large screen and hoping for the best. Card magic can work on stage, but it has to be the right card magic.

For example, much of the card magic of Yu Ho Lin (as a contemporary example) is far better suited for stage than it is for a walk-around performance. If he performed a lot of his stage act in a close-up environment, he would almost certainly have to be followed around by a team of cleaners and ensure that his audience did not mind being buried beneath piles of cards! Likewise, his stage routine works well without the direct audience interaction that is often required in close-up.

Most card, coin and rope magic are effectively small-scale illusions, so there is no reason why stage illusions could not be adapted for close-up, but it would be as wrong to throw many large illusions into a close-up setting as it would be to put close-up card tricks on stage. Everything must be adapted for the location.

Another point to consider is sight-lines. Close-up magic is designed from the ground up to work with a performer who will be near to an audience. By contrast, stage illusion is designed on the understanding that an audience will be contained in a controlled position.

Stage illusions can sometimes be scaled down, but might be difficult to adapt to use surrounded. Example: I have been working with a diminutive performer who has a killer set of routines for a scaled down floating box from which he produces an assistant. His version has no trolley and it has a clean ending in which he picks up the box and walks off. As it stands (or floats) it cannot be performed surrounded because it was designed specifically for the stage.

Genuine street illusion (not the variety that is set-up for TV) takes the audience into account in the design and is effectively close-up magic.

Like Ekuth says, "think out of the box". That is a rule that should be applied to every project. Design for specific types of location and do not just adapt - be creative.

They are two seperate art forms requiring different types and levels of deception. Is one better than the other. no. Is one harder than the other. no. It is called stage magic and close up magic for a reason. To adapt a stage show for close up, or close up for stage would require the skill of a phenomenal showman. Quite frankly the vast majority of "magicians" out there are incapable of pulling that off. LOL. Many already do the art a disservice by not being good performers. There was a fellow magician I saw interviewing for the camera when I was on AGT. He was talking about how much better he was than other magicians because he "didn't use cheesy props." He then proceeded to do a parlor trick suitable for an audience of 100 for over 3000 people, was booed off the stage and ridiculed by the judges. I also know a magician who has invented the most phenominal close up tricks I have ever seen and I could never come close to his level of skill, yet he is about as entertaining as a wet rock. Bottom line. stick with what you are good at, and if the audience pays for a stage show make sure you can deliver. Just because one "thinks they can" doesn't mean that they should. The argument of who are better magicians between close up or stage guys is about as dumb an argument as what is better between karate or Kung fu. There phenomenal illusionists and close up guys out there but unfortunately the majority cant even entertain a room full of red headed step children and most of those who make the close up vs stage argument fall into the latter category. ok, rant over

On 2012-05-03 21:20, w_s_anderson wrote:
They are two seperate art forms requiring different types and levels of deception. Is one better than the other. no. Is one harder than the other. no. It is called stage magic and close up magic for a reason. To adapt a stage show for close up, or close up for stage would require the skill of a phenomenal showman. Quite frankly the vast majority of "magicians" out there are incapable of pulling that off. LOL. Many already do the art a disservice by not being good performers. There was a fellow magician I saw interviewing for the camera when I was on AGT. He was talking about how much better he was than other magicians because he "didn't use cheesy props." He then proceeded to do a parlor trick suitable for an audience of 100 for over 3000 people, was booed off the stage and ridiculed by the judges. I also know a magician who has invented the most phenominal close up tricks I have ever seen and I could never come close to his level of skill, yet he is about as entertaining as a wet rock. Bottom line. stick with what you are good at, and if the audience pays for a stage show make sure you can deliver. Just because one "thinks they can" doesn't mean that they should. The argument of who are better magicians between close up or stage guys is about as dumb an argument as what is better between karate or Kung fu. There phenomenal illusionists and close up guys out there but unfortunately the majority cant even entertain a room full of red headed step children and most of those who make the close up vs stage argument fall into the latter category. ok, rant over

Doug Henning included close-up on a big screen during his stage show back in the 1970's. Saw him as a kid when he came to the Paramount Theater in Seattle. Most of his effects, of course, were large stage illusions, but he also mixed it up a bit with more intimate effects, which made for a nice variety. In fact, the part I remember best was when he used a giant screen to project an extreme close up of his hands as he did some amazing finger warm-ups (he seemed to have total independence between his fingers, in a way I've never seen since), coin rolls with both hands, and then (I think) a coin flurry.

Most people probably came to the show to see the Big Magic, and Henning certainly delivered on that. But then once we saw he was just as effective at close range, it seemed he could do anything.

Since then, my personal preference has been for variety in an act. I'll love the Bengal tiger/boxcar transpo through the spinning saws of death all the more if the performer can follow it with a solid card manipulation routine.

Close-up and Street Magic probably predate stage magic. Perhaps this is a "wave of the past"?

Electronic media has certainly hurt stage magic as have the vanishing stages. Even comedy and nightclubs with live entertainment have greatly reduced their numbers.

Note that magic conventions and active magic clubs are doing the same!

Bob Sanders
Magic By Sander

Magic By Sander / The Amazed Wiz

For more tips on audience engagement, check out our article on magic show performance tips.

Since then, they have been searching for a way to break the curse and restore their hands. Legend has it that there is a prophecy which foretells of a chosen one who will come to their aid and lift the curse. This chosen one is said to possess a unique talent or ability that will allow them to unravel the mystery and find a solution. In the meantime, those affected by the curse have been left to live with their missing hands, facing the challenges and limitations that come with this affliction. The story of "Lost Hands: The Golden Curse" delves into the lives of these cursed individuals as they navigate through a world that does not understand or accept their condition. It explores themes of strength, resilience, and the search for redemption and freedom from the curse. Through their journey, they will encounter allies and enemies, struggle with their own inner demons, and ultimately come face to face with the truth about the curse and its origins. Overall, "Lost Hands: The Golden Curse" is an intriguing tale that combines elements of mystery, fantasy, and adventure. It takes readers on a journey filled with twists and turns as the characters race against time to break the curse and regain their lost hands..

Reviews for "The Enchanting Legends of Lpst Kands' Golden Curse"

1. Sarah - 2/5 - I was really disappointed with "Lpst kands the goldem curse". The storyline was confusing and lacked coherence. The characters were bland and one-dimensional, making it challenging to connect with any of them. Additionally, the writing style was jumbled and inconsistent. Overall, this book did not live up to my expectations, and I would not recommend it to others.

2. Mark - 1/5 - "Lpst kands the goldem curse" was a complete waste of time for me. The plot was extremely predictable, and I found myself bored throughout the entire book. The dialogue was stiff and unrealistic, making it hard to imagine the characters as real people. The pacing was way off, with slow moments dragging on and exciting moments being rushed through. I regret picking up this book and would urge others to avoid it.

3. Jessica - 2/5 - I struggled to enjoy "Lpst kands the goldem curse" due to the poor editing and numerous grammatical errors. It seemed as though the author did not bother to proofread before publishing, which made reading this book a frustrating experience. Additionally, the story lacked depth and emotional resonance. The twists were predictable, and the resolution felt rushed. Overall, this book was a letdown, and I would not recommend it to anyone looking for a well-written and engaging read.

The Curse of Lpst Kands' Gold: A Dark and Twisted History