Show Notes: Secret by Derren Brown

From The Magic Circle Jerk, June 2005

About a month ago I was watching Derren Brown's Russian Roulette special with a friend of mine. At the climax of the show, where Derren is purportedly playing Russian Roulette with a real gun on live tv, (well, on the night it originally aired it was live, not on the night we were watching it) my friend turned to me and said, "This is terrifying." Now, my friend has zero interest in magic, but she was really enthralled with the whole show and I was happy that she enjoyed it so much, and I was impressed that Derren was able to evoke that type of reaction because I think it's a difficult thing to do. When David Copperfield suspended himself over that pit of fire or whatever he called it and escaped from a straight-jacket, I think some people were probably interested, but I doubt many people were actually frightened for him. (Probably because the whole thing was too "show-biz." Note to performers: If you want people to really believe you're putting your life on the line, tone down the theatrics. Someone in a real life and death situation would have a hard time remembering the choreography to whatever soft-rock, Peter Gabriel, bullshit they're supposed to be dancing to.)

I've been an unabashed Derren Brown fanboy since he arrived on the scene. I've read all his books and I've illegally downloaded every special of his I could for the past 15 years. His TV series are great, but his specials are some of the most fascinating things I've ever watched and are, I think, such a brilliant evolution of the Derren Brown "character." I'm completely on board for anything he ever does. 

So when I heard he was bringing a show to NYC I knew I had to find my way back there to see it. I was the ultimate fan so there was no chance I was missing this.

And while I'm thrilled I finally got a chance to see him live, the truth is that being the "ultimate fan" probably diminished the potential impact this show could have had on me. I wish I could have come to the show with no knowledge and no expectations, it would possibly have been the best magic show I'd ever seen. But since this show was Derren's first show in America, it served more as an introduction and a "best of" so much of it felt very familiar, of course. 

I'm not complaining about that. I'm not a moron. "Why didn't Derren workshop a full show of new material for his first show in America! I demand an answer!" I'm just putting it into perspective that it's difficult for me to give an objective view of the show due to the nature of my fandom, and the nature of the show that was put together.

There were still a few moments that caught me off-guard. The end of the first "Act" leading into intermission was great and totally new to me. It also fooled me with a classic stage-magic technique that I don't think I've been fooled with in 25 years. 

But by and large, what I enjoyed most was watching the enjoyment of others as they watched the show.

I can't count the positive things I heard from the audience during and after the show. Overwhelmingly people were truly blown away by what they saw. 

The only thing that didn't come off that well to me was the Q&A part of the performance. It was interesting to see this classic effect performed, but I think it might not hold up to the scrutiny of a modern audience. It didn't seem to resonate like it should. I think the effect might not be completely clear. Are you reading people's minds? Are you reading the contents of a sealed envelope? Is it psychometry? Are you telling the future? I guess you're doing all that, but when the effect is a little murky I think some things that are clear stand out more to the audience. And one thing that was clear in this Q&A routine was that they wanted a lot of information from us on our cards. As I heard one audience member say outside the theater after the show, "They had our first name, and last name, and seat number, and our date of birth, and our secret questions... I could have found out a lot about anyone with that much information."

And while it's true there are layers of deception to the effect, I think when you're writing down your full name and date of birth you just assume that much of your life is an open book to whoever has that information (or an open facebook, at least) and it kind of chips away at those layers of deception. If I ask you to write down your social security number and seal it in an envelope and later I tell you where you were born, you're unlikely to think, "Wow, he determined where I was born and he had no way of knowing that because my social security number was sealed in that envelope!" You're more likely to think, "Well, he must have gotten in that envelope somehow." As I said, my feelings on this only come from watching the audience and, at least on this night, the audience wasn't buying it.

The only other somewhat negative thing I heard was during intermission and it came from a woman a row or two behind me who was apparently not really impressed with the show to that point. "Of course he can know what you're thinking," she said, "because he can make you think things." That is, I think, the danger of Derren's style. It's almost too believable at times. I mean take a look at the Magic Cafe's mentalism section from 2003-2008 or so. Those dingbats were trying to create material where the methods were based on Derren's presentations. They didn't get that he was goofing around. Those fucking dipshits. 

Outside of that one woman's comments though, I think Derren does a good job of presenting things that are somewhat believable mixed with things that are unbelievable and magical. And I doubt there is another performer alive who cold put on a 2 hour 40 minute show of material I had mostly seen before and still have it fly by.

The Describe or Die Maxim

This is our JAMM Muse for June, Karla, doing her best Annemann, minus the mustache. (Oh, we considered the mustache.)

When we shoot with the Muses, we like to perform the effect for them, if possible, so they have some idea of the context in which their photos will appear. With Karla it wasn't possible because we were shooting during the day and Good St. Anthony, the effect in the June issue that her picture goes along with, requires performing in a very dark room. So you either need a windowless room or to perform at night when you can get a room pretty dark.

So instead, my friend Andrew who was doing the photography, just described the trick to her. And as he was walking her through it, he was showing her the cards that were used in an earlier performance of the trick (the "guitar" ones that were used in the actual performance that was written up in the magazine, and used for illustration purposes). So he was just talking her through what a performance would be like, beat by beat. And he gets to the end and does the final reveal with the cards and Karla goes, "What! No way!" And covers her mouth with her hands.

To be clear (for those of you who don't subscribe and might not follow what I'm saying), she didn't actually see any magic or anything unusual. Her reaction was solely based on the description of how the effect would look if it was performed for her.

It wasn't as strong as if she'd actually seen the trick, of course (it's a crazy strong trick), but it was bigger than a lot of reactions you see online for people watching a "meaningless" card trick.

---

For a long time I've felt there is value in just describing tricks to laypeople, and it's something I do pretty frequently. The three main benefits I've received from this are:

1. They often interject with ideas that make the trick stronger or take it in a more interesting direction.

2. It's the easiest way to "test" a trick and to test the deceptiveness of a method. You don't need to actually perform the floating bill to know that one of the first thoughts people will have is that it's suspended from some kind of string that's hard to see. You can just describe a trick you're "working on" and then ask them how they think it might be done. 

So, with the floating bill, the conversation might go something like this. (I'm paraphrasing this from an actual conversation I did have on this effect many years ago.)

Me: I'm working on this new trick where I borrow a dollar, crumple it into a ball and make it float in the air.

Friend: Sounds cool.

Me: Do you have any idea how it could be done?

Friend: Not at all. Maybe you float it on a column of air or something. Like a hair dryer hidden somewhere.

Me: No, it's not like that. I could do it right here or on the street somewhere. If you saw me take a bill and make it float right in front of you, what would your first thought be on how I did it?

Friend: I don't know... I guess maybe that it's suspended from something I couldn't see, like fishing line or something? Unless it was really flying around like a bird.

Me: Oh, okay. No, it's not suspended from anything. But I can't really make it fly like a bird either. How could I convince you it's not suspended from something?

Friend: I guess If I could wave my hand over it. Or pull it out of the air myself.

So now I know—especially if I hear that from multiple people—that a good way to eliminate the idea of thread is to let them wave their hand over it. And maybe that's obvious, but perhaps if I hadn't asked I would have spent a bunch of time coming up with a way to pass a small hoop around the bill, when that's not the easiest way to show them something isn't suspended.

3. The third benefit I get from describing tricks to people is that it builds up anticipation. It can be interesting to people in a "peek backstage" sort of way, to hear about a trick and then a few months later actually see it come to fruition. Obviously you don't want to do this with a trick that has a particularly "surprising" climax, but for more direct tricks I think it's a good idea. And it can help disguise the method in some ways. If the bill is just hanging from a string, why did it take him 4 months to work out how to do it? There must be something more interesting going on.

---

Describing a trick is one step removed from performing it. But after the experience with describing the Good St. Anthony trick to Karla, I think there is possibly a benefit to being two steps removed from performing a trick. That is, I think it might be helpful to some of you to just think about describing tricks to people.

I've cured myself about 90% of "magician-centrism." I'm pretty good at not getting wrapped up in a clever method or an interesting sleight. But for a lot of magicians this is kind of a big issue. Well, actually, most magicians don't really care. They're in this hobby to entertain themselves, first and foremost. It's like collecting stamps or something. Sure, you might think, "I'm going to show people my stamps!" But that's not the reason you collect them. It's just your personal interest. And that's fine. If you just want to entertain yourself with this stuff, I don't have an issue with it.

But there are those of you who suffer from magician-centrism who want to redirect that energy towards the audience. And sometimes you'll have a trick that you really like and you might wonder, "Do I really like this trick because I think it will strongly affect people? Or do I like it because I like the structure and it feels good to perform and it's kind of clever?" I think a good way to strip a trick of its magician-centric elements is to just imagine describing the trick to someone as if it was performed for you.

"This guy showed me a trick where I cut some cards and then I counted the number of cards I cut. Then he showed me cards and I thought of a card at the number I cut. Then he dealt through the cards and stopped on the card I was thinking."

Yeah, I'd never bother describing that trick to people. It's just not interesting. You might think.

And yet thousands and thousands of magicians will perform this trick for people.

The Jerx Describe or Die Maxim: If it's not interesting enough to describe, it's not interesting enough to perform.

Don't you want to leave people with a memory they would want to tell others? Well, if you can't imagine yourself describing it, it's not the sort of thing that they would share with anyone else either.

It doesn't mean you need to throw out the whole trick. You can address this presentationally. The Engagement Ceremony style, for example, takes procedural tricks and puts the emphasis on the background of that procedure. You probably can't imagine describing a trick like, "I dealt cards and counted cards," etc., but you might describe an old fortune telling ritual you partook in (that involved dealing and counting cards), that had some eerie or coincidental outcome.

Thanks to Karla and her gleeful reaction to the description of Good St. Anthony in JAMM #5 for inspiring this post, as a good Muse should.

Schedule Note

Just an FYI that tomorrow's post will be showing up a little later in the day. I don't believe I ever specifically stated new posts will always be up at 3am New York time, but I've gotten into that habit, so I want to keep my precious babies clued in when I break that pattern.

I know for a lot of you—if not most of you—this site is all you have in your life. Sure, you have some fat wife and rotten kids, but this is the only thing that brings you true joy. I don't want you to not find a post here tomorrow, figure I got hit by a bus, and then swallow a bunch of slush powder or something.

I'll be back. I swear. Daddy's just going to get some cigarettes.

The Freaks and Geeks Technique

I've mentioned before about the focus group testing I was involved with in regards to magic. A lot of the results of that testing are lost to time. The people I conducted the tests with and I weren't doing things with an eye towards the future. We were just curious about answering specific questions we had. "Are people really suspicious of a deck that's not a Bicycle deck?" No. "How many phases is ideal for the ambitious card?" Based on people rating their "enjoyment" of a routine on a scale of 1-10, the ideal number of phases for an Ambitious Card routine is either four or one (That is, do it once without repeating it. But this requires a lot of focus being placed on that one moment.)

I recently recovered a lot of our notes and participant questionnaires which were buried deep in my storage space and I've been reminded of a number of questions we tackled (and, to be honest, a lot of it is straight gibberish to me, I have no idea what our notes refer to).

This weekend I got an email asking me if I had a routine for the WOW gimmick. I do have such a routine, but it was developed with other people so I want to get their okay before I release it anywhere.

But that request reminded of one thing we tested that I think had interesting results and has informed a lot of my material in the years since. 

This was a year or so after WOW 2.0 came out (The original WOW gimmick came out over 10 years ago, guys). I was at a coffee shop with a friend and we were talking about how to justify the gimmick. Is it a luggage tag holder? Does it protect expensive baseball cards from UV rays? Do you keep a credit card in it so people can't scan it and steal your data while it's in your purse? A bunch of ideas that were about a 3 or 4 on a scale of 1-10. But seemingly better than just bringing out this weird sleeve and saying nothing about what it was. 

Then another friend joined us and asked what we were talking about. We clued him in and his response was that we were doing the exact opposite of what we should be doing. And he explained his theory, which I'll get to in a moment.

We decided to test both theories in front of people, to see which performance they enjoyed more and which engendered the least amount of suspicion towards the gimmick. (Via an app my friend had developed that I've mentioned on here before. It measured the position of someones finger on a phone screen over time. People would swipe up when something happened that drew their suspicion, then back down after the moment passed.)

In both versions we had the ungimmicked sleeve (which they sell) examined and switched for the gimmick before the trick starts.

In Version 1 the gimmick was introduced as a sleeve that is designed to protect valuable sports cards in some rounds, and as part of a luggage tag holder in other rounds. 

My other friend's theory was that we shouldn't be trying to normalize the gimmick. We should instead suggest that it's something incredible. So in Version 2 the gimmick was introduced as a prototype of a time-traveling device that could send "nearly" two-dimensional items back and forth through time. "Like a fax machine, but through time instead of space," is one of the lines I remember being used.

At that time I'm sure my money was on Version 1 getting the better reactions. "People like magic with ordinary objects," I had been told. So present it as an ordinary object, of course.

In actuality, the results of the testing showed something else. The people enjoyed Version 2 about 25% more than Version 1. And people registered their suspicion four times higher on Version 1 than on Version 2.

I was sure something was off about the results. How could people be four times more suspicious of a luggage tag holder then a "two dimensional time traveling machine"? Well, in part the answer is because it's NOT a luggage tag holder. It doesn't look like any luggage tag holder anyone has seen before. 

But that's not the total answer.

And I know it's not the total answer because later we tried the same test, except this time we used a trick that did use an actual luggage tag holder (a variation of John Guastaferro's Lost and Found). And they were still more suspicious of us referring to a luggage tag holder as what it was than referring to it is a mini fax-machine that sends items through time. The differences weren't as dramatic, but they were still there. 

Here's my theory about why this is. When you're performing as a magician, people are inclined to not believe what you say. If you introduce something as a common object, people will think, "That's not a common object. There's something more going on with that. I'm suspicious of it." But if you introduce something as some kind of fantastic object they think, "That's not some fantastic object, it's something much more mundane." This is jiu jitsu. You're using people's momentum against them. In this case, their natural distrust for what you're saying as the magician. You're using that to make them think the object is more ordinary rather than thinking there's something special about it.

If you pull out a luggage tag holder and call it a luggage tag holder, people will think, "Who's he kidding? There's no way that's a normal luggage tag holder." But if you pull out a luggage tag holder and call it a 2D time-traveling case, they think, "Who's he kidding? That's just a luggage tag holder."

In the first case they think your primary motivation to lie is to deceive them, so it makes them suspicious. In the second case they think your primary motivation to lie is to entertain them, so they essentially ignore it.

I'm not suggesting this is the right move in all situations. I'm saying it's the right move when dealing with props that are unusual or out of place ("unusual" and "out of place," like you in high school, that's why it's called the Freaks and Geeks Technique). In those situations you've already abandoned the notion that what you're doing is off the cuff or organic. So in that case you might as well use the cover of theatricality to justify the prop rather than being all like, "No, no, I swear. This is just a normal thing."

When something is out of place it's not a normal thing even if it's a normal thing. If you perform magic at a restaurant you can do effects with items on the table or with cards or coins (or other items strongly associated with a magician), or with your phone or keys or other items people carry regularly. That all works. That's all magic with "everyday objects." But if you pull out a Q-tip, then it's suspect because people don't bring Q-tips to restaurants. An object's everyday-ness is location specific.

This technique is similar to what I wrote about in the post "The Hidden Benefit of the Unbelievable Premise." When you give something a dramatic purpose it becomes less suspicious methodologically. And, as we saw in our testing, if you have something unusual or out of place, people are more interested in it if you give it a fantastic (unbelievable) story then if you go out of your way to justify it as normal.

Summary: Freaks and Geeks Technique - If you are using an unusual object, or an object that wouldn't normally be found in the environment, implying that it's some "ordinary" object will generate push-back and cause people to think there's something extraordinary about it. But if you imply there's something extraordinary about it, they will push back in the direction of assuming it's something common.

Five

JAMM #5 will be sent to subscribers later tonight. Anyone who subscribes before then will receive issue 5 as their first issue. If you're after that, then your subscription will start next month with issue 6. You can subscribe here.

We were talking to Karla, our JAMM Muse for June and we were telling her she would be doing a pose inspired by Annemann for the cover.

"Who's that?" she asked.

"You know, Annemann. The guy behind The Jinx and Practical Mental Effects."

"Never heard of him," she said. "I only read the truly foundational authors in magic and mentalism."

Then she pulled this book out of her bag and crashed on the couch for the rest of the evening.

Gardyloo #25

I got this email the other day. I'm very tempted to take them up on their offer.

I consulted the "team at Thejerx" and we're pretty much all for it. They write the content and pay us for it? Deal. If I had some idea what a reasonable price to ask for would be, I'd do it. I'm just curious to see the article they'd write. I'd fully expect it to be some dull generic bullshit about DraftKings or whatever. But maybe they'd surprise us all with a multi-phase prediction routine using sports betting, with a theme about the nature of risk that really makes people reassess their lives and puts everything I've ever written to shame. Well... keep an eye out for it. They're probably not huge fans of me preemptively telling you about it. Or referring to it as likely being "dull generic bullshit," but who know.

And, in the future, if there's ever a post you don't particularly like, just realize it's probably the doing of DigitalContentZone.

---

As I suspected might happen, Penguin has removed the download I mentioned in the Smurf Job post a couple days back. 

But don't worry, there is a six-page review of this effect in the JAMM coming out tomorrow. That's right, six-pages. I went all Jamy Ian Swiss on a single completely inconsequential effect from a $4 download. After you read that you'll have a good idea of what the effect entailed and why I'll never perform it again.

---

Magic in the Media!

You know I always like to see how magic is portrayed in television and film. 

Now, this example isn't strictly an example of magic, but our sister art hypnosis.

The May 10th episode of Law and Order SVU, entitled Spellbound, featured a hypnotist! How exciting. I'm going to watch it right now. I can't wait to see how this hypnotist factors into the story. Do they bring him in to help crack a case? Does he peer into someone's mind to find details that bring a murderer to justice?

I'm going to watch it and find out!

...

Oh...

Okay. He raped women using hypnosis and NLP.  That seems about right.

---

If you have Netflix and are into MST3K at all, the new season features a movie called The Time Travelers from 1964. There are a lot of magic tricks in the film presented in the manner of special effects. It's pretty amusing to watch them shoe-horn tricks in that don't really relate to the plot. Check it out if that's your thing.

---

My pal and JV1 illustrator, Stasia Burrington released her full 78-card tarot deck recently. I have one and it's the balls. I highly recommend picking one up.

I also really love these circus posters below. The original artwork is for sale in her etsy shop.

On the Fragility of Fooling

I have no doubt these thoughts have been expressed before. In fact, the only idea I'm totally sure is 100% unique to me on this site is the time I suggested making cards with brown and pink pips and then using the statement, "It's a fanny colored card," as a two-way out (based on the multiple meanings of the word 'fanny') in order to fish for the color.

I used to believe that fooling people was the purpose of magic. And, I guess, I still believe that. Certainly there needs to be some level of deception for something to be considered magic. But what I don't believe is that the more someone is fooled the better their experience is.

In 2004, on my old blog, I talked about the experience of seeing Kenton Knepper perform Kolossal Killer live. I talked about how the people who I was with were fooled by it, but then after he left the trick quickly fell apart. This has been the same with pretty much every performance of KK I've seen. People are fooled, but then they think, "I'd like to see what else was in that wallet. Maybe it wasn't a full deck, but he could have had a bunch of cards." And from there it's not hard to see how the "out" on the back of the card actually gives the trick away. 

At the time, I thought the fact that the trick falls apart on reflection was the fatal flaw of the trick. I wrote:

When performing magic your greatness is only determined in part by how well you fool them in the moment. The other part, the overriding part, is if they look back on the incident and are still fooled by it. Imagine if you were prepared the finest meal you'd ever tasted, everything was cooked to perfection with the perfect amount and right combination of spices, it was served in a beautiful room, on beautiful china, by a beautiful waitress. And for the rest of your life you think, "That was the finest meal I ever had." What makes that meal important to you is not just how good it was at the time, but in retrospect it is still the finest meal you ever had. Now take the same situation, same incredible meal, but this time you go home and a little while later your stomach starts rumbling and you spend the rest of your night puking and shitting your brains out. That's right. The sluices are open at both ends. Now, if anyone ever asks you what the finest meal you ever had was, you're not going to choose the one that had you puking and shitting all night despite the fact that it was incredible when you ate it. You're going to choose something you got at Applebee's or whatever. My point is, for an audience, figuring out a magic trick has the same effect as getting diarrhea from a meal. You get the point.

I no longer believe that. In fact, I know it's not true. I've experienced the opposite (that is, a trick that doesn't fool people in the long run, but still provides a great experience) from both sides (performer and spectator).

In the epilogue to The Jerx, Volume One, I tell the story of the greatest magic trick ever performed. This was a trick that was profoundly mystifying but only for a short length of time. I've never seen a trick get a stronger reaction, nor have I ever seen a trick have a more profound impact on someone long after it was over.

Earlier this week I wrote about Derek DelGaudio's show and I said:

I especially loved the final moment of the show. I'm a sucker for a twist ending. And In & Of Itself, has a final 2-second effect that occurs at the very end of the show that came as a complete surprise to me and will forever be one of my strongest memories from any theater show. And it made something click in my head about our objectives when we perform magic (more on that to come in a future post).

(This is that future post.)

Now, here's the thing. That final effect only fooled me for a matter of moments. I experienced the effect, was blown away by it, but almost immediately knew what must have occurred. (Or, at least, I have a workable theory of what occurred.) And I don't think that's just true of me as a magician. I think any intelligent audience member would say, "Ah, when we were looking here, this must have happened over here." (I'm being coy to preserve the moment for those who haven't seen it yet.)

But that moment was still powerful to me. Even though it didn't "fool" me in the long run, it was still so surprising and visually and conceptually interesting that it's one of my favorite pieces of magic I've ever seen.

This was kind of a key moment for me, to be on the other end of the equation. I had learned as a performer that people had a greater appreciation for an effect as a story they live through rather than just being fooled by a hard-hitting trick. What I mean is, in my experience people have a greater enjoyment for a minor trick with an interesting presentation than they do some mindblowing miracle that they just can't connect to in any real way. But it wasn't until experiencing it myself that I felt like I truly understood why that is in a personal way, rather than just a theoretical way.

As magicians we concentrate so much on whether something fools people. But fooling people, at least initially, is relatively easy. One magic book alone will give you 50 ways to fool someone. Yet we keep looking for some new trick that might fool someone in a way it matters. The problem is that "being fooled" is a very fragile thing. If your spectator figures out the method, or thinks they figured out the method, your goal of "fooling" them crumbles. Even if they don't figure out the method but just say, "Ah, I don't really care how he did it," then you've sort of failed to fool them. Because fooling them would imply they're actively trying to figure out how you did it. You can't beat someone in basketball if they're sitting on the sidelines. And you can't really fool someone unless they've bought into the challenge.

So "Fooling" is not really the metric I use anymore. I don't think it's that useful as far as determining what people will enjoy. "This fools them more, so they'll like it better," isn't something that really rings true. Being fooled is an intellectual concept, not inherently an entertaining one.

What I've found is that if you want your magic to resonate, you don't just want to fool people, you want to thrill people. That's the verb I'm trying to keep in mind these days.

I want experiencing an effect to feel like...oh... I don't know... something like saving a hot blonde from a gorilla and a muscle-bound guy with a wooden mallet by fighting them at the same time. Punching them simultaneously with such force that you bust through the bars of a jail cell while death attacks you with a snake. Or something like that.

The main problem with most of the tricks in print isn't that they don't fool people, it's that that's all they do. You're fooled by Kolossal Killer, and that's all you get from it. So when the method crumbles the whole point of the interaction goes with it. Even if your method is impenetrable, being fooled is something that tends to diminish over time, especially if a trick is otherwise sort of meaningless. 

But being thrilled is something people cherish and romanticize. It doesn't necessarily diminish over time, often it gets built up.

How do you thrill people? I don't really have a step by step approach to it. But I think that's what I've been working towards in this site, although I didn't really know that was the word I was looking for. For example:

1. I think you can thrill people by appealing to their sense of adventure. The Romantic Adventure and Engagement Ceremony styles are designed to put people in the position of taking part in something they've never done before.
2. I think you can thrill people with genuinely surprising moments. The finale of Derek's show was a surprise. There was no prelude to the moment. It just happened. That's similar to the esthetic I strive for with the Distracted Artist style. Real surprise in magic is rare. If I borrow your ring, wrap it in a silk, make it vanish, and it appears on my shoelace, that's kind of a surprise, but kind of not because you're expecting something unusual/amazing to happen. It would be completely different if I asked to have a closer look at your ring (for some reason) then when I handed it back it was gone. We both looked all around for it and found it on my shoelace. Imagine how that would feel, especially if you had no idea I did magic. That's a true surprise.
3. And I think you can thrill people by removing them from the role of spectator. For years I've harped on removing yourself as the magician, but haven't mentioned the corollary to that which is that when you do that, you remove the other person from the role of "spectator" or audience. They become more of a participant. And that expanded role makes them more susceptible to getting wrapped up in and "thrilled" by the experience.

Obviously I still think fooling people is important in magic. And the two goals should go hand-in-hand. Being fooled can be a big part of being thrilled, but I think the first step for me in making progress in this direction was realizing that just fooling people was more about my ego than it was about entertaining people. 

I'm not suggesting every trick needs to be some monumental life-changing thing. I think there's value in little thrills too. I'm only suggesting that I think you need to offer more than fooling someone if you're looking to give them an experience to remember.

Someone will now email me and say I'm just reiterating something that was said in Our Magic, or Your Magic, or Fucking Steve's Magic, or whatever it is. I'm sure that's probably the case. But I'll tell you this: To whatever extent it's been said before, it clearly didn't stick. Bill in lemon, cups and balls, linking rings, the egg bag, almost every card and coin trick ever—these are tricks designed to fool, not thrill.

I really like thinking in terms of "thrill" "enthrall" and "excite" as opposed to "fool" when thinking about the experience I want to deliver. It gets me in the right mindset in regards to thinking presentationally rather than methodologically. For the people who write me and ask how to go about coming up with more engaging presentations I think it's helpful to have those words as the target you're shooting for. That's going to have a greater impact on what you present to people than if your goal is just their basic ignorance of your methodology. 

And it's just a good word.

THRILLING