Hocus Interruptus: Pocket-Pocket-Pocket-Pocket Change

Seeing as how I'm trying to save some of my favorite unpublished routines for the book, I thought I would launch a new feature (which may never return) where I take a look at the other end of the spectrum. Tricks that never really came together in a way that I wanted them to. Perhaps there is something to be gained from my attempt, even if it came up short. 

Listening to the podcasts mentioned in the post a couple of days ago, I was reminded of my attempt to come up with a gimmickless version of Cosmo Solano's International Pocket Change or Greg Wilson's Exact Change (depending on which side of the issue you fall). In this effect, the spectator names any number from 1 to 100 and that's the amount of change you have in your pocket. I liked the premise and I bought Greg's version. My issue with his version -- and I realize I'm risking a summons to the dojo for this criticism -- is that I felt the gimmick was a bit too large to ring in and out of play. Too large for me, that is. Greg handled it much more deftly in the instructions than I could.

So I came up with the following version that I did a few times and it worked fairly well for me. The reason I didn't continue performing it is because I could never come up with a particularly great presentation for it. And it required a modification to a piece of clothing, so it wasn't particularly practical. In truth, it's not really fair to call this gimmickless because that piece of clothing is gimmicked.

You need a hoodie that zips up the middle (so the pockets are two separate entities). You also need to modify this hoodie. Let me find a picture of the type of hoodie you might own so I can illustrate what you need to do.

Okay, what those red lines indicate are the locations of slits you make on the inside of each hoodie pocket. That is, you're not cutting the outside of the pocket at all (so everything looks normal from the outside) you're just cutting a slit on the fabric that is against your skin. Now, even though it's a hoodie with, apparently, two distinct pockets, you're able to hand things back and forth between the pockets. Notice that the slits don't go down all the way to the bottom of the pocket, that way you can still hold stuff in there without it falling through the slit and getting lodged in your belly button (that's a different effect).

Okay, so the set-up is that you have that hoodie on. You have a quarter in your left pant's pocket. Your right pant's pocket is empty. Your right hoodie pocket has 4 pennies in it. Your left hoodie pocket has four nickels in it. You hands are in your hoodie pockets with your fingers and thumb pinching the coins in a beveled spread in each pocket. 

"I want to try a little thought experiment with you," you say. "I want you to imagine a store. And there are two unique things about the store. The first is that they have every item known to man in the store. And the second is that everything in the store costs less than a dollar. Which is perfect for me because I definitely don't have more than a dollar. So, for example, if I wanted... say... a 1986 Wrestlemania sweatshirt, I could find one on the rack and the price would be maybe 71 cents. Or I could buy a nuclear armament truck for 14 cents. Now I want you to imagine I walk into the store and I stop in front of one item. For the time being, don't tell me what the item is, just look at the price for this item and tell me how much it is."

If the number is between 1 and 50, that is your target number.

If the number is over 50, then subtract it from 100 and that new number is your target number. (So if they say, "80," your target number is 20.)

If the target number is under 25:
You pick up the coins that total that number from your hoodie pockets. (And I say "pick up" because picking up the coins you need is much quieter than dropping the ones you don't.) With minimal practice this can be done in one action, simultaneously, and in less than a second. Then you place the left-hand's coin into the right hand, through the slit in the hoodie and curl your fingers loosely around the change. Reach into your right pants pocket then pull out the change (that you just put in). Turn your pocket inside out to show that it's empty. Or have the person reach in to verify that it's empty

If the target number is between 25 and 50.
Subtract 25 from the target number then pick up the necessary coins from your hoodie pocket and feed the pennies from your right hand into your left hand through the slit. Then take your left hand and reach into your left-hand pant's pocket. Grab the quarter that is in there and remove all the change. Show that your pocket is otherwise empty. 

Now, the script varies depending on whether the number they gave you was over 50 or under 50. The key line of dialogue that sets up this bifurcation in the script is when you say that the store is perfect for you because you, "definitely don't have more than a dollar." This sentence can be taken to mean, "I have a dollar, and no more than that," or, "I have some amount of money, I don't know what it is, but it's definitely not more than a dollar." 

If their number is under 50:
"And what product are you looking at?" As they tell you this and you comment on it, you make the necessary change adjustment in your pockets. "A box of scented condoms? That's crazy. That's exactly what I'm planning on getting at the store later today. And how much did you say they were? 42 cents? That's right, that's exactly right. That's why I brought just that much with me today." And you remove the coins from your pocket. Or you can act like you're going to remove them, then "change your mind" (dropping off the coins) and have the spectator reach in to pull out the change.

If their number is over 50:
"And what product are you looking at?" As they tell you this and you comment on it, you make the necessary change adjustment in your pockets. "A denim jacket with Tweety Bird on the back? That's exactly what I got earlier today. I swear on my mother's life. How much did you say it was? 86 cents? Yes, that's exactly right. Remember I said I only had a dollar? I walked into the store with my dollar, I bought the jacket for 86 cents. And here is my change. Exactly 14 cents."

It's ultimately too much set-up for not enough trick. There are a couple of parts of the trick I do like. I like the way the hoodie is gimmicked and I expanded on it later with a little fabric tube coming out of the back of my right hoodie pocket and then going into my jeans pocket or even further down my pants and into my shoe or sock. So I could have a coin in my left hand, pretend to place it under a beer bottle on a bar (or something), and have it appear in the shoe on my right foot. I never really came up with a good use for this though. I also like doubling the amount of numbers I could cover with my "prediction" either by using the number they gave me or the change I received after buying an item that cost whatever number of cents they named. I'm sure that's been used before. 

I think this particular presentation begs for something to be done with the item that they named. I'm currently learning about iphone app development and design because I'm making some apps for myself. If I was working on this trick today, the follow-up would be this. I'd say, "I know you think I'm fucking with you but I swear to god I'm not. That's exactly what I bought [or "am going to buy"] and that's exactly what it costs. Do you think it was a coincidence that was the change I had in my pocket? I hate that you don't believe me. It breaks my heart. What a betrayal. Oh... I know!" I'd say and reach in my pocket, remove my phone and tell him to go into Safari where he'd see that the last google search run was, "Where can I find cheap denim jackets with Tweety Bird on the back?"

Book Report - 2/2

I updated one section of the book release page today and I wanted to highlight it here just because it's a point I want to make clear:

The most important thing to keep in mind if you're a fan of this site is that buying the book isn't just your way to possess a book. You buying the book directly translates into more content for this site. I think people tend to project a more traditional business model on this enterprise. As in, "I see. He writes that blog so he has an outlet to get people to buy his book." But that's backwards. I don't write this site so I can sell books on it. I'm selling books so I can write this site. I take any money I make through this site and use it to "hire myself" -- to buy my time to work on this site (time that would otherwise have to be spent on other freelance work).

This blog is the thing. That's why we're here. It may be the brain in my head, the heart in my chest, and the diamond-hard 100% all-beef thermometer in my jeans that is responsible for the content, but without you guys and girls supporting it, it wouldn't be here. So I really appreciate those of you who have bought (or will buy) the book and those of you who will pick up some of the other things I'll be releasing as time goes on. Your support allows me to do what I do best.

Like find gifs that capture the true wonder of magic:

Identify products you can buy to add mystery and enchantment to the lives of you and your loved ones:

And post ONLY the hottest pictures of the sexiest ladies in magic.

Today's Work:

  • Continued work on the opening essay on presentation, clarifying concepts and putting things into actionable steps.
  • I tried formatting some of the content into what it will actually look like on the page and realized I have planned to include far more material than will actually fit into a 300-400 page book. It's a good problem to have, I suppose, I'm just not sure what stays or goes at this point. If I was in the opposite predicament -- if I only had 80 pages of content, I mean -- my plan was to end the book with 220 blank pages with the word "Notes" at the top. You know, for notes.

The People vs. Gregory Wilson

I had never listened to Scott Wells' Magic Word Podcast until recently. "A podcast for magicians, about magicians," does not sound appealing to me. In fact it sounds like it's intended to be some kind of punishment. You realize a lot of these people got into magic because they couldn't string together a sentence that their fellow middle schoolers found compelling, yes? We're interviewing these people now? 

No, I'm sure the podcasts are fine and I give Scott a ton of credit for putting out over 270 of them. That's insane. I just hadn't ever gotten into them. I'm already behind on the podcasts I do listen to, so the Magic Word Podcast never cracked my Zune, baby. Until recently, that is, when the whole Gregory Wilson kerfuffle started. (And I'm man enough to call a kerfuffle a kerfuffle. Don't think I won't.)

Scott Wells has said on the Genii message board that he wants this podcast to play out like the podcast Serial did. And that would be a pretty apt comparison if Serial had not been about a tragic murder and had instead been about someone shoving food into their purse at a buffet. Like, that's how low-stakes the issues being talked about in regards to Gregory Wilson are. 

It all started a few weeks ago when Greg was being interviewed on episode 268 of the podcast and he decided it would be a good time to come to his own defense because, apparently, many people think he steals material. Or, at the very least, that he appropriates ideas and then claims to have been working on them for years. I didn't know this was a reputation that Greg had. I had heard of a couple issues in the past, but I think even the most honest magician will have a couple of issues either due to independent invention or just because we don't always remember where every bit of inspiration comes from. 

So Greg, feeling he had unfairly been given the reputation of being a thief, decided to clear the air in a fairly aggressive way. He called out a number of people for saying he stole tricks or failed to credit. The people did so "with no evidence,"  he claimed. And I'm sure at the time it felt great to call these people out, but all he ended up doing was shining a light on a controversy that wasn't really known to the vast majority of magicians. In future podcasts, Greg's "accusers" are all brought on to give their side of the story, and for the most part they don't even really want to go after him all that much (other than John Lovick, who does so gleefully). In general, his accusers seemed to be over the alleged transgression or at the very least weren't making much of a big deal about it. So the sad thing for Greg is, when he runs the license plate for the bus he got thrown under, he's going to find it's registered in his own name. 

The podcasts -- and so far there are five episodes devoted to the subject: 268 - Greg Wilson, 270 - Apollo Robbins, 272 - Cosmo Solano, 273 - Alex Rangel and Bret Geris, 274 - John Lovick and Seth Kramer -- aren't particularly fascinating in an insider-magic way. The accusations just aren't that interesting. But as a psychological study of a person, I find it pretty intriguing. 

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm friendly with John Lovick and he's been supportive of my work for over 10 years. He's one of the few "comedy" magicians who I feel has genuine comic chops and he seems comfortable in his own skin (although god only knows why, if you've seen the guy). I don't know any of the other people on the "anti-Greg Wilson" side, but they all sound totally reasonable and seem completely convinced of their position. 

And I like Greg too. I don't know the guy at all but I've enjoyed much of his material and his online lectures. The picture that is painted by listening to these podcasts is not that Greg is untalented, and maybe not even that he's a thief, really. But that his talent is in finding good effects and props and building on the work of others (Lovick makes a compelling point that most all of his releases are other people's effects). And perhaps that's not how he wants to think of himself. Maybe he want to see himself more as an originator. So when he sees an effect he likes, part of his brain is like, "I think I had that same idea a long time ago," and then he just goes forth as if that's reality when maybe it's not. I don't know. I do have a feeling his defense is going to be, "All these people are liars!" which isn't a great defense unless there's some rationale for why this group of people has aligned against you.

My favorite story to come from the podcasts is when Greg threatened to beat up John Lovick and Luke Jermay. Going so far as to invite them to his "dojo" for a fight. First off, if someone invites you to their dojo to fight, absolutely take them up on it. I was a bouncer at a notoriously rowdy bar in my early 20s. There is nobody who it is easier to kick the shit out of than someone who has trained in martial arts. Their training and their sparring follows a code of conduct that is so far removed from actual real-life fighting that I've found them much easier to knock on their ass than the average guy. Here's a video of how shitty your attacks would have to be to have them defended by martial arts.

But regardless of that, you're going to beat up John Lovick? This guy?

What pride can you take in that? "I just knocked the crap out of John Lovick." Well, great, now you and a stiff breeze have something in common. I've been kissed harder than John Lovick can punch. I can't imagine what kind of praise you would expect from beating up John. Here's what would happen. You'd beat him up and then be like, "Did you see what I just did there?" And the other person would be like, "What do you mean? I saw you knock over a pool cue someone had draped a suit on, but other than that, no. I certainly didn't see anything worth bragging about."

A Valentine's Day Trick

Valentine's day is coming up. There is a history in magical performances of trying to make things "romantic" by adding the most blatant and obvious love symbolism to the effect: hearts and roses and stuff like that. So instead of sponge balls, they'll do a trick with sponge hearts. There is nothing romantic about the presentation, it's just sponge balls with sponge hearts. Many magicians are just dumb enough to believe that doing an effect with props laden with banal symbolism will maybe make someone fall for them, even though there is nothing warm or personal about the effect at all.

It would be the equivalent of writing someone a love poem that went like this:

True Love

Hearts and roses and love
Love and kisses and hugs
The sweet embrace of love
Doves and champagne and a fireplace
And one of those champagne glass hot tubs
And more hearts and rose petals
And the most loving love
Stars in the sky and the moon too
And love
And roses and stuff


In the third issue of my newsletter, X-Communication, I reviewed the effect, The Souvenir by Henri White. In that review I noted a number of issues I had with the effect and then offered some alternate presentational ideas that I believe minimize or eliminate those issues. 

The effect that follows is another presentation for The Souvenir that I believe also addresses those issues and would be good for Valentine's Day too. It involves a mild invasion of personal space that could be a gently intimate moment (although, knowing you, you'll likely fumble it into something creepy).

The effect is this, you have your spectator select and sign a card. You then tear a small hole out of the middle of the card. Assuming your spectator is wearing a necklace, you ask her to spin it around so the clasp is in front of her and to wrap her fist around the clasp so there's no way anything can get on or off the necklace. You then step behind her, lean in, and connect the card to her necklace the same way you would to the wine glass in the original effect. Step back in front of her and have her spin her necklace around, the card will, impossibly, be dangling from the necklace.

The method is straight from the DVD. But doing it behind your spectator gives you all the time you need to make it look right. And I just feel there's something potentially fascinating about doing something secretive, inches away from someone, and with something attached to their body. 

It does lack the "impossible object" nature of attaching the card to a wine glass, but that doesn't bother me too much. Sometimes it's nice to have that magic moment that you can freeze forever, but I also think there's something to be said for a moment that only you two shared and then it was gone.

However, if you like the personal nature of this effect and do want to extend that magic moment, try this... Take your phone and turn on the video camera, do a 360 around your spectator showing that her necklace is normal. Then have her spin the clasp to the front and instead of holding the clasp she takes the camera in both hands and records herself. You go behind her, the clasp never goes out of site, and the card links on. Now you have video proof of the impossibility of the object.

Or, if you have this type of relationship with your spectator, you can retain the "impossible object" effect of the original by linking the card to her bra strap or her underwear.