Last Call for Monthly Payments

If you wanted to support this season of The Jerx via 12 monthly payments, Saturday is your last day to sign up to do so. Why? It just makes things easier logistically in a number of ways, but the primary reason is because I don't want to be accepting monthly payments so far into 2019 for the 2018 season. 

Lump sum payments will be accepted for many more months to come, so there's no rush there.

If you want to sign up to support the site through monthly payments, you can do so here until Saturday. 

giphy.gif

A Clarification and A Mission Statement

I had another post I wanted to do related to the Spectator as Magician plot (a theoretical stage version based on a close-up version that's in the upcoming book) but I'm going to push that into next week because I want to clarify a fundamental philosophy of mine when it comes to performing magic. I've touched on this before, but not clearly enough because I'm asked about it once a week, at least, over email (and twice today, which prompted this post).

I've often said that if you want people to truly believe you have supernatural powers, then you have a personality disorder. I've also said in the past that, "I don't like magicians who want others to walk away from their performance believing something untrue. I think that's bad for the spectator, bad for magicians, and bad for the art of magic."

Now, people have a hard time reconciling that with my approach to presentations. The emails I get essentially say, "If you don't want people to believe in these things, why invest so much time and energy into these presentations?" More specifically, they'll look at something like my previous posts on the Spectator as Magician plot and they'll question why I think it's important there's a rationale for why the spectator has these powers at this point in time, and not before and not after. Why go though the whole bit with the phrenology chart and setting up the idea that the effects are temporary, when I don't really want them to believe in those things anyway? 

Well, let me first confirm that yes, I don't want people to believe that me pressing on certain areas of their skull will allow them to read minds. In general I don't want them to believe any presentation I give them. Belief is the death of the feeling I want people to have. I talk about this more in this post, Feeling and Belief

Let's stick with the phrenology example, because it's the most recent. If I don't want people to really believe phrenology is the cause of the effect, why introduce it at all? Or if I'm going to set it up, why go into the detail about the effects being temporary? Why worry about the chart looking authentic? Why not just give them a noogie and say, "Hey now you're a mind-reader. What number am I thinking of?" Why worry about it seeming real, if I don't want them to walk away believing it was?

Hold those questions...

Imagine I was someone who made movies. Actually I want you to imagine three different versions of me as a filmmaker.

1. Let's say I hired some actors to dress in period-appropriate clothes (that is, clothes appropriate to the period of the film, not clothes to menstruate in) and I got an actor to play me as a child. And I went to a bunch of locales near where I grew up and I used an old VHS camcorder to make "movies" of me getting first-place in the spelling bee, hitting the game-winning home-run in Little League, and getting ready to go to prom with the head cheerleader. Let's say none of these things actually happened, but I'm trying to create a false record through these videos to convince people I'm this amazing person with a bunch of skills and accomplishments I don't really have. If I did this, you would rightfully think I was a psychopath.

2. Okay, let's say I'm not making movies about me. Instead I'm making films about aliens and Bigfoot and ghosts. I'm shooting a bunch of fake footage of these entities, but I'm trying to pass off these movies as documentaries. I'm claiming the footage is real. Maybe some of you would think that was a fun thing to do, a larger percentage of you would probably think that makes me a loser. (I'd agree with the latter assessment.)

3. Now let's say I'm the director of a motion picture called The Last Temptation of the Skunk-Ape (In Japan it's known as The Final Days of Swamp Cabbage Man). It takes place in Florida in the mid-60s and it follows a young couple on the run from Florida's smelly Bigfoot monster.  And I get every last detail correct. You grow to really feel for the young couple and you cry and scream and jump in your seats and feel relief that they escape at the end. 

You would probably think that was a good thing, and a good use of my filmmaking efforts. You wouldn't think I was a psychopath or a loser. And no one would ask, "Why are you putting so much effort into this when you're not trying to get people to believe it's a documentary? Why do you want people to be moved by this experience if you don't want them to think the movie is real?"

We understand this logic when it comes to movie-making. I'm just applying the same logic to performing magic. I don't want people to think I have supernatural abilities. I don't want them to truly believe my presentations. What I want to do is to create really compelling magical interactive fictions for them to experience.

So if I do a Spectator as Magician plot, for example, and I don't give them a rationale for why they can accomplish this thing at this point in time, that is a plot-hole in the interactive fiction. If I don't explain why they won't be able to read minds when they leave, that is a continuity error in the the interactive fiction.

I want the experience to seem as real as possible. But as I said in the above linked post about feeling and belief, what makes that so powerful is that it seems so real when they know it's not. As I wrote there: The magic feeling occurs in the gulf between what they believe is true about the world and what felt true during the course of the effect.

I don't want people to say, "I believe he read my mind," or, "I believe a ghost cut that deck." I want them to say, "I know there was no invisible dog," or whatever the case may be, "but... how did he?...wait...uhm... he must have... no, that's not it... fuck, it really feels like there might have been an invisible dog."

And I want there to be no plot-holes, continuity errors, or loose ends that take away from that experience. Nothing that feels false or out-of-place. Not because I want them to see this fiction as reality, but because I don't want impediments in the way of their reality getting caught up in the fiction. 

Of course, these are my goals at the highest levels. Often what I do is not so ambitious. I do a lot of stuff that's just intended to be fun or interesting or entertaining. But those sorts of things don't need clarification. And still, in those situations, true "belief" is never something I'm after. 

In fact, having someone really believe something that isn't true, makes me very uncomfortable (as it should any normal human). And what steered me away from the more believable presentations was when people were actually presuming there was some truth to them. It was then that I adopted the following mission statement:

Make the unbelievable feel real and the real feel unbelievable.

What I mean by that is, if my presentation is something unbelievable like ghosts or time travel, I want that to seem as real as possible. If it's something "real" like body language or memory, then I want to push that to the point where it seems unbelievable, e.g., "I can tell which of your hands is holding a coin based on your cat's body language as it sits in your lap," or, "Yeah, I took off two weeks from work this spring and memorized the public library. Go ahead. Grab any book."

In my earlier years, at my best, I think my performances would fall into the "amazing/puzzling/impressive" category. And there's nothing wrong with that, really. But I do think that's the type of experience people can get by watching something interesting on tv or on youtube. By pursuing the "interactive fiction" idea and following the mission statement above, I feel like now, at my best, my performances fall into the "amazing/fantastical/unreal" category, which people seem to really enjoy. And that seems a worthy goal given that social magic is one of the few forms of entertainment that can reliably deliver such an experience.

Mess With Their Head

This is your make-up post for the one that didn't publish last Monday.

Here is a little gift for you. What follows is an Imp, a Hook, and it ties into yesterday's post on enhancing the Spectator as Magician Plot. 

It's a phrenology chart from the 1800s. 

01phren.jpg

Phrenology is a pseudo-science about the shape of the head or some junk, I don't really know what it is. But I do know there are about 50,000 different tricks you can get into if you leave this chart out, half-folded on your coffee-table or something like that. 

You see, I've modified this chart by adding "Retentiveness" (i.e. memory) long and short term; "Intuitiveness" (general, imagery, numbers and letters); and "Sympathy." These are all things that might realistically be listed on this chart, but they're also subjects you can use (along with a number of the others that were already listed there) to get into many effects, particularly in the "Spectator As" genre. Most any routine where the spectator achieves some magic/mentalism effect could be seen as a result of memory, intuition, or sympathy.

So, someone finds you studying this chart, or finds it on an end-table in your house. "What's this?" they ask.

"Oh, it's an old phrenology chart. It's some horse-shit 'science' from the 1800s. I'm kind of interested in it because [here you put in whatever backstory you have for your performances: your mentor suggested you read up on it, another magician you hang out with showed you something interesting in regards to it, you read something about in your uncle's notebook, you saw a video on it that was being passed around in a private facebook group, or whatever.) There's actually a kernel of truth to it. There are different areas of the cranium that you can stimulate in a way that will enhance or hinder certain mental states temporarily. It's kind of interesting but not anything you can really build a whole branch of medicine on like they tried to a couple hundred years ago. The technique is kind of hit and miss, and you build up a tolerance to it very quickly, so when it does work it works briefly and then you have to wait a few months for that area to reset to its natural state. Actually... can I try something with you?"

What am I doing here? Well, I'm just making up shit about something that's already bogus in the first place. But I'm also establishing a fairly perfect Imp for a Spectator as Mind Reader effect. Yesterday I wrote:

"For the spectator to feel like maybe they've done something they've never done before, they need to be subjected to a new, or at least uncommon, experience or sensation."

In this case, the "uncommon sensation" is going to be you "stimulating" a certain area of their scalp. Don't just do it for a few seconds. Give it at least half a minute. I like to tell them it takes about two minutes. This is the buy-in concept in action. Use your fingers and varying degrees of pressure, or maybe use q-tips like this is a clinical procedure. 

Now you'll shift into an effect based on whatever area of their scalp you were supposedly stimulating: a demonstration of their enhanced memory, a manifestation of their increased intuition, or something that relies on an upgraded sympathetic response. 

Not only does this particular Imp establish why they can suddenly perform these feats, you also make it clear why they won't be able to in the future. (You've told them from the start the effects are temporary, hit and miss, and that the body almost immediately builds up a tolerance to it, so it's something that can only be done occasionally. (Of course, six months later you can have a different effect chambered to go through this process with them again.))

Be sure and check out some of the other areas listed in the chart (some you'll have to look-up the definition to know what they mean) they are bound to give you ideas for other types of presentations. I've been using this chart for a little over a year and have a bunch of different effects that utilize many different classifications listed in the chart. I have a trick that might be in the next book where I do something and the spectator is like, "So what?" Then I stimulate the "wonder" part of her cranium and do the same thing again and she's blown away. More details on that to come.

You can almost certainly shoehorn any trick into at least one of these designations. If not, come up with your own categorization for it and then be like, "See this section 19a where it says 'not determined'? Well, a few decades after this chart was made they found out that section controls _________." And just put in whatever you want.

Here is the chart in pdf form for you to download and print. (If you feel the need to re-do the chart to add something else to it, I would encourage you not to clean it up. I purposely made the chart with all the weird hyphenation and letter-spacing of the original. You don't want something that looks slick and new because there are no slick and new phrenology charts.)

Enhancing the Spectator as Magician Plot

The Spectator as Magician (or Mentalist or Mind Reader) plot is one that has always had its share of detractors. Critics will say that it makes your "powers" seem less special and that it turns magic/mentalism into something the just anyone can do. Usually this criticism is made by people in the mentalism community who want their audiences to believe they genuinely have some supernatural abilities. Giving someone else that ability would—in their mind—undermine the fake powers they don't really have that they're desperately trying to convince people they possess. Don't listen to these people. They are deranged and overwhelmed with feelings of inadequacy in their personal life. They don't make good role models.

And their logic is moronic too. Imagine you went to an orchestra concert and at one point the conductor plucked you out of the audience and said, "You're going to play harp on this next number." And you said, "Well, I don't play harp." And he said, "We have the power to allow you to play harp for this one song." The song starts and miraculously your fingers are dancing along the strings and playing in perfect time with the rest of the orchestra. Now the song ends and the audience bursts into applause. What are you thinking at that point? Are you thinking, "What?! How...? What was that?" Or, as those mentalists would suggest, are you thinking, "Huh. Well, I guess playing the harp is easy. Thanx byeeee!"

I don't believe for a second that the Spectator as Magician/Mind Reader plot takes away from the performer in any way. When done correctly, especially in a social setting, it can be a truly unreal and profoundly memorable experience for people. 

The problem is this: you hardly ever see anyone perform this plot correctly

Let me explain...

Let's say you're good with a nail-writer. So you've been doing a trick where you have someone think of any two-digit number and it matches what you wrote down before the start of the trick.

Then you decide that instead of you being the mentalist, you will do this as a Spectator as Mind Reader plot. So instead of saying, "I've predicted the number you're going to think of," you say, "I'm thinking of a number. I wrote it down so I can't change my mind. I want you to try and see if you can read my mind and tell me what number I'm thinking of."

Generally you will find that this gets a stronger reaction. But I think the increase in reaction is due to you shifting the focus off yourself and presenting the trick in a way that is different than what they've seen before.

In reality, I think the trick is only somewhat stronger. You may go from a 5 on the reaction scale, to a 6. But if you want to go to a 9 or 10 you need to give them an experience that feels different in some way. 

What I mean is this, if you perform Out of This World for someone, it feels to them like they're dealing out cards randomly, because they are. If you ask them to name what number you're thinking of, it feels like they're guessing, because they are. So you're presenting them with experiences where the only difference is the outcome. So for them, reading your mind or predicting the future feels identical to guessing. They never get the sensation of doing anything unusual because the "mind reading" is only verified in retrospect. You're not really giving them much to believe in here. "When I walked in I wasn't psychic. When I leave I won't be psychic. And when I guessed what number he was thinking of, everything felt normal." You can't really expect the trick to be that much more affecting just because you switched from "I'm reading your mind" to "You're reading mine," if everything else is the same.

Enhancing the Spectator as Magician Plot

Here is how you take Spectator as Magician/Mind Reader to the next level. 

For the spectator to feel like maybe they've done something they've never done before, they need to be subjected to a new, or at least uncommon, experience or sensation. They need to do, see, taste, hear, feel or smell something that puts them in a slightly different state of mind. Then their experience of "reading someone's mind" will be associated with a state that is different than the norm. And then, when the outcome is different from the norm, there is a cohesiveness to the experience.

Here's an extreme example, just to make the point: Take someone who has never used drugs before and give them a dose of LSD. Then, right when they're really feeling it, perform Out of This World for them. I promise you, they will truly believe that in their altered state of mind they were granted some power/insight to differentiate between red and black cards. They won't doubt this at all. 

Again, that's just a theoretical point. Don't dose people with LSD. But you should do something to put someone in a slightly different state before they take on the role of mind reader or magician. It can be anything: holding their breath, an unusual physical exertion, listening to a particular frequency of tuning fork, tantric breathing, ingesting something unusual, gazing into rippling water, inhaling some mysterious scent, getting a mild static shock. Or put them in a state of low-level fear, or arousal, or bliss. Or go visit them when they're sick and bring some soup and a get-well gift and say, "You know, there's something strange you might be able to do when you're in this condition. Are you up for trying it?" There are countless directions you can take this.

For long-time readers, you'll recognize this is an extension of the ideas of Imps. Imps are particularly useful in Spectator as Magician effects because they justify why now this person is able to do this thing.

Done in this way, you can really capture someone's imagination with the Spectator as Magician/Mind Reader plot. In my experience, if you don't provide an impetus to help explain why they suddenly have this ability, then the experience can ring a little hollow. It may still be a good effect, but the audience won't really entertain the notion that they played a big role in what happened. Instead they will see themselves in the same way they see the magic wand you hold; not as a true source of power, but as a prop you used in the process of the effect.

Gardyloo #61

Building on Wednesday's post, I have another post on transitions coming up in the next few weeks. But before that comes I want to give you one piece of advice that has been very helpful to me that was given to me by a friend of mine. And it's this: A good transition does not have to be smooth, a good transition only has to feel naturalWith this in mind there are many available opportunities to shift into a magic performance other than the "steer the subject X" approach that has traditionally been the only advice offered.

The next post on transitions will dissect that idea.


Do you mail things internationally often? If so, maybe you have some input here.

Let's say I want to mail a book from New York state to some other country overseas. It weighs 2 pounds. It seems my options are:

1. Use USPS and spend about $30.

2. Use FedEx or UPS and spend about $160

That's not an exaggeration. Here are my options via UPS from New York to Oslo, Norway.

Screen Shot 2018-06-07 at 11.03.42 PM.png

(I particularly like the "saver" option which saves me a whole $1.22.) 

Is there some secret to international shipping that I don't know about? Are these really my only options? If you have some experience with this and know another option I might not have considered, let me know.


Dear Penguin,

Here are my Top 5 Penguin Live Lectures I'd like to see:

  • David Acer
  • Richard Sanders
  • Bro Gilbert
  • Michael Weber
  • David Stone

Please get to work on that.

Speaking of Penguin Live, I don't know this week's lecturer, but she looks really hot.

14321a-5af9ce4891e83.jpg

In this post on using the Google Home in concert with magic effects I wrote:

[Y]ou could theoretically create an "if this" statement for every card in the deck. Then you could have a card freely chosen (say from a stacked and/or marked deck), cue it to Google Home in your question and have it name the correct card in a very fair way. 

Reader, Brian Villa Connor offered this cueing system. 

IMG_20180529_235022.jpg

It will take a moment for you to wrap your head around it. Ultimately it's fairly simple, but it's not really intuitive (it's not one of those things that you learn once and remember forever, you'd have to practice it in your head from time to time).

Here's how it works. Someone chooses a card, you secretly know what it is. In the course of asking your Google Home to help you out, you'll code the card to it and it will give the proper response. (See the previous linked post for more info on how that part works.)

So your sentence will be, "Hey Google, [suit code phrase] ["help me" if 8-K]  [the combination of phrases that delineates the value]."

Some examples: 

"Hey Google, can you pick a card?"
Google replies: "Okay, I pick the Ace of Clubs."

"Hey Google, I'd like you to name a playing card."
Google replies: "Okay, how about the four of hearts.

"Hey Google, please think of a playing card." 
Google replies: "Okay, I'm thinking of the six of spades."

"Hey Google, I want you to help me and name any card."
Google replies: "Okay, the nine of diamonds."

"Hey Google, can you help me and think of a card?"
Google replies: "Okay, I'm thinking of the Jack of Clubs."

You can play around a little with the wording on both the input and the output to make it more to your liking, but I think this is a pretty good start. 

The mnemonic for remembering the suit input is:

"Can you" = Clubs > Both start with C

"Please" = Spades > Both have the P and S sound

"I'd like you to" = Hearts> When you "like" something online, you often click a heart.

"I want you to" = Diamonds > You want money (you greedy bitch).

Thanks to Brian for letting me describe this here. 

And I'll put the challenge out to anyone else if you can come up with (or know of) an easier two person code we could program into a Google Home (or similar device) for playing cards, pass it along. What I like about this one is that the phrasing never gets too weird, and all 52 cards can be expressed with the manipulation of 11 total variables. Which seems pretty good, but I'm interested in hearing other ideas. 


Slight (Of Hand)

First there was that dress that people saw as different colors. Then there was the Yanny/Laurel audio clip. Now we have the following video clip that can be interpreted one of two ways.

Either it's Josh Jay directing traffic and this woman misreads that gesture and goes to shake his hand and gets dissed.

Or—as I choose to view it—Josh is going in for the handshake and this woman punks his ass with the old "too slow" move.

giphy.gif

The All-Purpose Transition

This is going to be very useful to any amateur/social magicians who have some level of concern about their performances. I know it will be, because that describes me, and this is one of my most used "discoveries" in the last couple of years. 

It deals with the subject of transitioning into effects. I think for some amateurs this can be almost paralyzing. They don't want to be the guy who is awkwardly bringing up tricks out of nowhere. So they look for some natural conversational openings to transition into effects. Then they spend the next 60 years watching the calendar pages turn and waiting for one of their friends to mention ESP so they can casually get into this goddamn effect they've had in their pocket all this time. 

At this point, transitions aren't a huge issue for me with most of the people I know. I don't have to bring up magic or tricks. They do. And that's because of the precepts I wrote about in the "Social Magic Basics" posts earlier this year.

As it turns out, the tactic that I think does hold up in the long-term, is presenting yourself as someone with an interest in magic and then giving people a semi-fictionalized glimpse into what the world of magic entails. You're not pretending to be a magician, or mindreader. You're not putting on a show. And you're not giving them random tricks devoid of context. 

Instead you're giving them a true "behind the scenes" look at how magic is learned, practiced, and passed along, mixed with a more fantastical take on that subject as well.

Once you've established yourself as someone with an interest in magic (and by that I mean showing them interesting glimpses into that world, NOT just forcing them to watch your tricks all the time) then you don't need to worry about transitioning into effects because they will get you into tricks by asking you what you're working on or what interesting things you've come across recently. 

But still, there are times where you want to choose when, where, and for whom to perform and having a good way to transition into the effect is incredibly valuable. I'm not only going to give you a good way, I'm going to give you what I think may be the best way.

First, I want to briefly mention the traditional advice you would hear in regards to transitioning into an effect. You often hear it suggested that you should casually bring the subject of conversation around to the theme of your trick and then, from there, you can transition into the trick itself. This is a terrible tactic. More and more, I'm convinced that most standard magic advice was written by anti-social mutants who never performed in the real world for normal people. 

Let's say you're at dinner with a group of people. You "casually" turn the subject to ghosts. Then 5 minutes later a "ghost" is making your napkin float. How do you think this comes across to people? Here's how it comes across, "Oh, I see. He didn't really care if I had ever seen a ghost, he just steered the conversation to that subject so he could do his little floating napkin trick. Now I feel kind of dumb for telling him that thing about my grandma when he was just waiting to that bit with the napkin the whole time." That's not a good look. You've probably experienced conversations where people do something similar. They'll bring up a subject and ask you a question, halfway pay attention to your response, and quickly shift the focus to themselves to say what they wanted to say in the first place. It's pretty transparent.

Them: How does it work at your job? Do you get regularly scheduled raises? 

You: Actually, we used to, but not anymore. I don't mind it though, because when it was automatic, the raises were pretty much the same across the board. Now I feel like I can negotiate something higher. I actually have a meeting with my boss about this next Wednesday.

Them: Oh cool. I just got a $5000 raise! And it's just three months since my last raise!

All you're doing with this type of transition is making people feel set up. (On rare occasions, when an effect is truly personal and spectacular, then feeling "set up" can be a good thing. "You spent all that time planning this for me?" But most tricks you'll do regularly don't qualify as "truly personal and spectacular.") 

So let's talk about the All-Purpose Transition to get from a conversation into a trick. 

The first thing I've found is that a really slick transition is only good if you didn't bring up the subject of conversation you're transitioning from. This is what I was just saying above. If someone talks about coincidence and you transition into some impromptu coincidence effect, that's fine. But if you have to bring it up yourself and then try and transition, that's bad. One of the reasons I argue for a large sub-set of impromptu tricks in your 100-Trick Repertoire, is that it allows you to naturally transition out of many more subjects than just having a 6-trick repertoire would. 

But you don't have to wait for that "perfect" opportunity to transition into an effect. You can create it pretty much at will with the All-Purpose Transition. This is not a 1:1 transition. By that I mean, it's not a situation where you're talking about fate and then you transition into a trick about fate. There is a disconnect in this transition, but that's okay. I actually prefer this transition to any other in social situations. The disconnect is what allows it to be so broadly useful. This is a transition to get from any subject into almost any trick. 

Here's how it works...

Step 1: You have a conversation with someone about anything.

Step 2: At some point in the conversation they will say something funny, or thought-provoking, or wise, or bizarre, or profound, or vulnerable, or something that shows they're a caring person. If they don't say something like this over the course of a conversation, why are you talking to them?

Step 3: You pause and let what they said affect you in some way. You laugh. You smile. You sit back in your chair and think. You find yourself at a loss for words. Whatever the appropriate response might be. 

Step 4: You make a complimentary comment. "That's so funny." "That's brilliant." "You're amazing." "Where do you get these ideas?" "That's really smart. I never thought of it that way." "Damn. You're a good person."

Step 5: Let this moment seem to inspire you or remind you to try a trick with them. "Oh, that reminds me, I wanted to try something with you." "Oh... you know what... you'd be perfect for this thing I've been wanting to try."

Step 6: Go into your trick.

Now, to be clear, I'm not suggesting you transition into a trick when you're in a deep conversation with someone about their impending divorce or their mom's struggle with Alzheimers. This is just a way to get into a trick from a casual conversation, not a deep conversation. 

I'm going to tell you why this is so good in a second, but first let's consider an example. Let's imagine the most difficult situation to transition into a trick: with someone you just met who doesn't know you do magic.

So let's say you're on a 12 hour bus ride and you're sitting next to someone you haven't met before. You strike up a conversation and you two are hitting it off.

Them: So I said to him, "You know what sexual position makes the dumbest babies?" And he's like, "No." And then I said, "Well, guess we better ask your mother."

You: [Laugh] Oh my god. That's amazing. You've got a twisted mind.

[Pause]

You: Actually... can I try something with you? You'd be perfect for this. I have an interest in psychology and magic, and there's something I've been wanting to try but I haven't found the right person.

And then you're off.

If it's not obvious, let me explain why this is so good... 

Usually, when it comes to transitions, we're transitioning from talking about a subject to doing a trick related to that subject. ("We were talking about intuition and then he showed me a trick about intuition.") Or we transition based on the props involved. ("We were playing cards and then he showed me a card trick.") So there is some sort of constant before and after the transition. 

In this transition, the constant is them. The unspoken implication is, "You're so clever. I want to try this trick with you because of your clever mind." "You're so perceptive. I want to try this trick you because you're so perceptive." "You're so funny, I've been looking for someone with a mind like yours to try something with."

This makes the transition into the trick wildly personal

And you're launching into a trick only after they've impressed you in some way—with their wit, intelligence, or humanity—so the feeling here is that they've somehow earned the right to see this trick. It makes the trick feel like a reward they're getting based on something they did, not like you're forcing a trick on them to make yourself look good. 

You might think there needs to be a more direct correlation in regards to what happens at Step 5 and the trick itself. You might think you have to say something like, "You seem really empathetic. Let me show you something about empathy." And then you need to do a trick with a strong theme of empathy. You don't need to that. In fact it's probably worse. Let them draw the connections. They just need to feel this: "He wants to show me something because I impressed him with the [funny, intelligent, creative] thing I said." That "because" is all the justification you need. 

Everyone wants to be recognized for their positive or unique qualities. No one is going to challenge the idea that they earned this moment because of something special about them.

Of course, for this transition to make sense, the trick you show them will have to involve them in some way. But that's fine for me because 90%+ of the tricks I do require some level of genuine interaction. Don't follow up this transition with some show-off type of effect. If you have that sort of effect, don't worry about a transition. Just use the "Peek Backstage" style and you're all set.

But isn't this manipulative? 

No. I do only want to perform for people I find interesting or funny or good people. So I'm not lying about that. I don't pretend to find people interesting just so I can transition into a trick. I'm always honest about what I say about them. Perhaps it's slightly manipulative to say, "You're special, so I think we can do something interesting together," when I could pretty much do the same trick for a deflated basketball.  So if I am manipulating them, then I'm manipulating them into feeling unique and special for a moment. I don't have an issue with that. The truth is, while I can do most of these tricks for myself in the mirror, there is no spark of magic to a performance until I'm with a real person with whom I have some level of a connection. So, suggesting they have some affect on what's going to happen is, for me, not manipulative or dishonest. It's the truth.

Gardyloo #60

DeX62gBU8AACRlv.jpg

(No, this picture wasn't hidden away on Josh's hard-drive. And I didn't steal it so you could make perverted photoshops or tribute pictures with it. He put this picture out himself. No, I don't know why. I can only assume the pressure of the new show is getting to him.)

Best of luck to my pal Joshua Jay whose new show, Six Impossible Things, opens tonight. (There are 11 tricks in the show, apparently, but only 6 are any good.) 

What can we expect from this show? It's hard to say. But, as reader D.C. noted in an email to me. If you search magic set josh jay on amazon, it recommends you watch Transparent.

image1.png

So I'm guessing his new stage show might be the one that finally addresses his struggle with his sexual identity? I'm not sure.

On a similar note, does anyone know how Amazon does their algorithms? What I mean is, how many of us would have to buy Magic: The Complete Course by Joshua Jay and a big black dildo, before we could make this a reality on the Amazon page for that book?

Screen Shot 2018-05-31 at 6.13.08 PM.jpg

Is there video anywhere of Juan Tamariz doing the Crossing the Gaze switch? [Update: I've been sent the video by a few people. Thanks.] It's something I've done in the past myself, and it seems like it should be a psychologically fooling switch.

However, when I watch anyone else do it, it seems to just draw attention to itself. Their actions don't seem natural in the least. It either happens way too quick or there's a lot silent over-acting, like they're in a 1920s movie. "Oh, is the object OVER HERE in this pocket? No. Then it must be OVER HERE in this one." With lots of broad gestures and looking from pocket to pocket. (I've never needed to look at my pocket before putting my hand in it. Yes, I know, I must be some kind of genius.)

So I'd like to see the move in action by the originator, because I think there's something I'm missing. 


Here's a little trivia/anecdote/exposure that Joe Mckay mentioned using in relation to the trick I wrote up on Wednesday. I think it's a good bit of knowledge to have rolling around in your head to engage people with and perhaps transition into an effect. Yes, it technically exposes a "secret" (maybe, it might not even be true) but it's not something that's really going to affect your audience's enjoyment of what you do, or likely what any other magician might do in the future. 

Here it is, in Joe's words...

I spent some time studying the work of Harry Houdini. Along the way - I found a cool Houdini idea buried away in an old U.F. Grant book.

unnamed.jpg

It was a method that Harry used to use to escape from any pair of handcuffs. 

Houdini used to have specially prepared handcuffs made available when he performed. Along with handcuffs that he had keys for as well as handcuffs that he figured out how to escape from (eg by giving them a hard bang on the floor). Along with other methods.

Anyway - sometimes he would come across handcuffs that he would have no way of escaping from. So this is what he used to do. He would make the trick harder and in doing so, create a way to escape from the handcuffs. It was very ingenious.

He would place multiple sets of handcuffs on his wrists. And the ones that he could not escape from would be placed higher up the arms. So that when the lower ones were removed - the uppermost ones could simply be slipped straight off the wrists. 


My friend and the primary illustrator that I work with, Stasia Burrington, is working on a new deck of playing cards/oracle cards with a cat theme. I'm looking forward to it, because I love her work and I know it's the type of thing that will charm laypeople (in a way the Bicycle Titanium Elite Masters Vortex Knights: Stardust Edition Version 3 sorts of decks never will). I'll mention it here when it's released, or keep an eye on her etsy store.  

Screen Shot 2018-05-31 at 7.18.40 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-05-31 at 7.15.02 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-05-31 at 7.25.52 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-05-31 at 7.25.29 PM.png