Imps

Recently, I've been thinking about the causes of magical effects. That is, the impetus behind what actually is producing that effect in the moment. This goes back to my anti-snapping post

I wrote in that post:

If you ever do anything with a "snap" of the fingers, you've literally put the least possible effort into coming up with one of the more interesting aspects of a trick: the stimulus that makes the magic happen.

For the past few weeks I've been toying with this idea of putting the focus on the impetus (and not the effect) and have had pretty remarkable results from it.

I've been brainstorming and testing out a lot of different impetuses. And because "impetuses" doesn't really roll off the tongue, I'll refer to these as "imps." Which is some Max Maven-level wordplay because imps historically have been a motivating force behind magic.

So an "Imp" is something you do to make the magic happen. 

A snap is an Imp, because it's the impetus behind the magic. "This card will rise to the top when I snap my fingers." It's just a hackneyed an uncreative impetus.

The Five Movements I wrote about in this post would be another Imp. "The magic happens when I do the five movements." That would be another physical impetus (like snapping) but one that has some element of mystery to it. 

Using a magic word is a verbal impetus. Doing a half-mumbled verbal incantation might be a more interesting and mysterious verbal impetus.

If you're stuck on a presentation for an effect, I recommend you think instead about the impetus for the effect. Let's consider an example. 

You have an effect. Let's say it's a ball that changes color and then grows in size. 

The magician-centric presentation is, "Here is a ball. When I snap my fingers it will change color. When I say the magic word it will grow in size." The focus is on you and some half-hearted meaningless imps. 

However, you're a more evolved magician now, so you think I'm going to give this a presentation that truly connects with people. But you're stuck... what's it going to be about? Maybe the ball represents something? Something that changes and grows? Cancer? Aw fuck, that's a terrible subject to build a trick around. Hmmm... maybe something about how we can all change and grow... something inspirational? Would something like that come off as anything other than trite garbage?

Stop.

Thinking directly about the effect and trying to come up with a presentation that maps on top of the effect is probably not the best option. 

Instead think in terms of impetus. The ball changes color and grows when...what? Maybe the ball changes color and grows when your spectator smells the scent of some black tulips you have in a vase on your counter. What might that be like? Your friend comes over, notices the flowers and comments on how strange they are. "Smell them," you say. She does and you give her a half smile. "Notice anything?" you ask. She looks at you quizzically. You look around the room for a bit. "Let me grab something," you say and pick up a ball from your kid's toys. You wave the ball slowly back and forth. "Anything unusual happening?" you ask again. She starts to say no, but then the ball changes color and a moment after that it grows in size.

"Don't worry," you say, "the tulips have a mild-hallucinogenic effect. But it only lasts a few seconds." And you toss the ball back in the toy chest.

Putting your effort into creating an interesting impetus for a trick is a short-cut towards creating unique experiences for your audience.

I think every amateur magician who actually performs frequently for people in their life has noticed the diminishing reactions their effects get over time. And that's because, often, our tricks deliver the same experience time after time. "He read my mind to know what picture I drew." "He read my mind to know what word I was thinking." "He read my mind to know what the code to my phone was." That's all pretty much the same thing to a person. We think it's different because we're fascinated by magic so we notice the subtleties, but to the layperson these are all nearly identical experiences. You can watch someone paint a mountain or a river or a forest, and those are all the same experience for you despite the different subject matter unless you yourself are enamored with painting. 

The best way I've found to prevent the diminishing reactions is to differentiate the experiences. And the best way I've found to differentiate these experiences is to differentiate the impetuses for the effects. 

This is a subject that genuinely fascinates me. I have a document with over 60 Imps on it right now in all sorts of different categories. (Physical Imps, Verbal Imps, Procedural Imps, Sense Imps, Mystery Imps, among others). And I've been performing as much as I can recently to try out some of them and it's been pretty amazing. Tricks that I formerly had no real presentation for—ones that I would just use the Peek Backstage style for—have new life in them when prefaced with an intriguing or mysterious imp.

That being said, I also realize this is probably of limited interest to a lot of you, so I'll try not to get too swept up in writing these things up for the site.

But I want to leave you with one of my favorite imps that I've been using whenever I can.

The Pulp Fringe-Imp

Think of all the self-working or mostly self-working card tricks that have been released in recent years—entire DVD sets devoted to these types of tricks. Pick any one you like. Ideally one with a lot of dealing and counting and other process, but one that still has an impressive outcome. The type of trick that often people think isn't "commercial" enough to perform for real people. 

I've been using this a lot with John Bannon's Collusion. In that trick I would have you and your friend each deal down any number of cards you want in the deck to select any random cards, those random cards are used to create another card, and then the free numbers you chose are used to find the card we just created.

The Pulp Fringe-Imp is a way of taking effects like these, that often come off as procedural puzzles, and turning them into genuine mysteries.

Here's how it works.

I come into the room with a deck of cards and a small suitcase. I open the suitcase and a light from inside illuminates my face.

I have you go through the processes of the trick as I would normally, but as you do I am tapping and clicking on something inside the valise. When you deal down to your freely chosen number I do something in the suitcase (and when your friend does as well). Then when the random card is created I do something else in there. When you both name your numbers for the first time I do one final thing. Then I close up the suitcase, lock it, clap my hands together and say, "Okay, we're all set," and go onto the climax of the trick. 

I never show you what's in the suitcase. I never say what's in it. I don't bring it up again. And I certainly don't suggest anything about how what I could be doing in there could affect the deck of cards and the actions that are going on with us. 

This is a Mystery Imp. There is no straight-line explanation between what you're doing and what happens, but that's what makes it so intriguing.

As the name implies this was inspired by both Pulp Fiction (the glowing briefcase) and the show Fringe (where a typewriter was used to communicate with... aliens (?) I think, I don't really remember the details).

If you look in my suitcase I have two dollar store lights that I turn on before I enter the room and an old dial typewriter from the 1940s. It provide a great mysterious ratcheting and clacking noise, but you could have anything in there that makes some not clearly identifiable sound. I also have a wind-up Peepers Binoculars in there, just for the hell of it. Nobody ever sees what's inside. (My plan is to make a more portable version of this with a small pencil-box-sized box as well.)

The effect of this is very different than just doing the trick itself. In essence you're layering a mystery on top of a mystery. Not only, "How did he do that trick?" but also, "What's in the suitcase?" and, "How did whatever was happening in the suitcase—how could whatever was happening in the suitcaseaffect what we were doing out here?" This is a related concept to The Gloaming and other things I've written about here.

Essentially it's about deepening the mystery. That sounds like a pretty abstract concept: "deepening the mystery." But here I'm suggesting a very practical method to do that by literally adding layers to the presentation. The impetus of the effect is usually a layer that is ignored or just given lip-service by magicians. "I wave my wand and magic happens, or whatever, who gives a shit." But it's the sort of thing that can be very compelling and really elevate the effect for the people you perform for.

With the GLOMM, Magic Always Comes First

A lot of people are crediting the creation of The GLOMM with a precipitous fall in the number of stories of magicians diddling kids recently.

The GLOMM, as you may know, is the world's largest magic organization. Everyone with an interest in magic or mentalism is a member, unless you're a sexual predator or just a general piece of human garbage.

Surprisingly, other magic organizations don't have these requirements. If you're Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker, and you want to join the IBM or the SAM, hey no-problemo! Just pay your dues. You want to expose yourself to a group of second graders on a field-trip to the petting zoo? That's fine by them. Just don't expose the glide to a non-magician. That might get you kicked out. That's where their priorities are.

With The GLOMM, there are no membership dues. Just be a dear and don't sodomize the birthday boy with a mop handle when his mom's not around, okay? Thanks. You're a gem.

If you'd like to up your membership level to elite status, you can purchase the elite membership kit here. That comes with the grey elite member shirt, membership card, and enamel pin.

The Secret Hyper-Elite Platinum Membership level shirt (the red one) is now sold out completely and will not be reprinted. (There may be a future SHEP Membership shirt for 2017, but it will be completely different.)

 

How Dumb Was Houdini?

I've always assumed Houdini was pretty dumb. And I've read a number of books about him and none of them really changed my mind about that. Obviously he was a brilliant showman and magician and a genius in certain ways, but just as a human he strikes me as kind of a dope. It might be the name Houdini. "I called myself Houdini because I like Robert Houdin." He doesn't get enough shit for that. That's a pretty dumb thing to do. You don't agree? You think it's cool? Okay, imagine you're on a train and the guy sitting next to you says, "I'm a magician. My name is Coby Copperfield-O, after my hero, David Copperfield." Not so cool now, is it.

Also, get off that train. I don't trust Coby to not turn that shit into a Terror Train in honor of his idol.

So, I have to say, I wasn't completely surprised when I saw a moronic quote attributed to Houdini while searching around for stuff online.

Screen Shot 2017-05-16 at 12.33.59 AM.png

Let's parse this for a moment. "My brain is the key that sets my mind free." His brain sets his mind free? What could that possibly mean, given that, in this context, brain and mind are used synonymously?

Was he dumb enough to say this?

As it turns out, no, he wasn't. What he said was:

"My brain is the key that sets ME free."

Okay, so it's a mind over matter type thing. He's saying it's not about the locks or the picks, it's about using his brain and focusing his mind, that's what sets him free. At least I think that's what he's saying.

That makes sense.

But what doesn't make sense is that I found that Houdini design on ebay and a number of shirts had sold with that mis-quote on it.

Did people not read it? Did it somehow make sense to them? Or is there just a subset of dumb people who will buy any shirt with Houdini on it regardless of what it says?

I'm hoping it's the latter because I'm starting a new t-shirt company. Here are some of my initial designs.

Screen Shot 2017-05-16 at 1.07.39 AM.png

New-Fangled Magic

Here's another classic from the MCJ archives, via request from reader SL. I don't know how someone remembers such a dumb post from 12 years ago, but here it is.

It started when I saw an ad for this. 

By the way, that's what constituted a GIF in 2005.

From May 5th, 2005

New Fangled Magic

I like this.

It says:

Although similar in function to glasses and jugs that produce a similar effect, the construction of the prop in the form of a regular milk bottle (3" diameter, 8.5" high) makes this seem like an ordinary every day object, least likely to arouse suspicion as a gimmicked magician's prop.

Yes, what could be more ordinary than a bottle that milk used to be delivered to people's houses in seventy years ago? I say: nothing. Certainly not those always suspicious "glasses." 

If the milk bottle seems like an "everyday" object above suspicion to you, then you may enjoy these other ideas I have for the modern performer of magical endeavors.

-I've found a good time to set up a magic effect is when the family is gathered round the radio listening to The Fibber McGee & Molly program. The sounds of their amuse-ed laughter let you know that you're free to spirit away that card into your pantaloons for a bawdy post-suppertime effect. 

-Call me if you should ever like to perform the effect where "The Wizard" identifies a selected pasteboard tele-phonically. My number is Klondike 2-5784. 

-To make an object float in poorly lit quarters, just have a colored fellow carry it across the room. His midnight skin won't be visible! But take heed! Negroes are notoriously scared of hoo-doo and prone to fisticuffs.

Dear Jerxy: Finding Accepting Audiences

Dear Jerxy: I need some motivation. I like reading your presentations and thoughts on performance and I'd like to adopt some of those elements in order to change up my style but I'm a little uncomfortable doing so. I don't know if the people I perform for would be interested in something more involved. (It can be a challenge to keep their attention for even a quick trick at times.) Is there a way to find more accepting audiences? Are there certain people you use a more standard presentation for if you think they'd prefer that? If so, how do you identify the people who would be up for something in your style as opposed to those who wouldn't?

Yours Truly,
Stuck in A Rut

Dear SIAR: Yes, there are some people who I perform for in a very cut and dried manner with very little engagement or theatrics. Those people are called "other magicians." Those are the only people I know of who want to just get to the trick. 

With everyone else my rule is to perform the most fun and engaging presentation I can for an effect given the situation.

A lot of people question a more interactive style of performance because they've performed magic for a long time and they recognize that audiences often just aren't into it. And so they think asking people to invest more into their performance is crazy. If people are barely into it when all they need to do is sit back and watch it happen, isn't asking them to join in and play along going to be some kind of torture for them?

That has not been my experience. 

An engaging presentation that requires the spectator to be more involved doesn't exacerbate their annoyance or disinterest. In fact it's the antidote to it.

I don't think you need to find new audiences. I think you can win over the people you currently perform for by changing up how you perform.

I used to perform magic in a pretty standard way. A way that I would now consider kind of dull and self-serving. And, like a lot of you, I found that about a third of the people I performed for liked magic, a third didn't, and a third were somewhere in the middle. 

But as my style has evolved, it now feels like almost everyone I perform for likes it on some level. And that's because, whenever possible, these things are not about me. They're about their involvement, so these tricks become experiences.

What do people do when they go on vacation? They see new things and do new things and experience new things. This is how they reward themselves after a year of hard work. People crave new experiences.

Ah, no, no, no, Andy. That's where you're wrong. I know a bunch of people who would rather just chill out and watch something.

Yes. But those people want to watch Netflix, not deal with whatever you're trying to show them in any manner. Do you really want to make your material as unchallenging and unobtrusive as possible just so you can show it to people who have no real desire to see it in the first place?

Here's the thing, you can't let the people who are least interested in what you're doing, define how you do it.

(That's a life rule, not just a magic rule.)

If you concentrate on creating interesting experiences (not demonstrations of your brilliance) you'll have no problem finding an audience, because interesting experiences are universally appealing, even if they require more "work" for the audience than a typical magic performance.

To think your spectator won't put effort into a more engrossing magical experience because they haven't expressed much interest in your traditional presentations (that don't require them to contribute much) is like thinking, "I don't believe this person would be interested in a night of passionate lovemaking because they haven't shown much enthusiasm in watching me masturbate on my webcam."

The Five Movements

NOTE:

The post below may contain spoilers for the show The OA. I have no clue, because I haven't seen the show. It would be like if I had never read the Bible but I showed you this picture because I wanted to talk about... I don't know...my fitness goals. And you were like, "Dude, you just spoiled the bible!" And I'm like, "What? What do you mean? Who is this guy? Is he an important character."

So, what I'm saying is, if you plan to watch this show and you don't want to hear anything about it, even from someone who doesn't actually know anything about it, then you may want to skip this post.


Reader G.G. sent me the following email in regards to the post I had written about how lame "snapping" is as a magical gesture and how it relates to a Netflix show called The OA.

Regarding your post, “The Least You Can Do” (April 24, 2017), have you seen “The OA” (Netflix)? I watched it with my wife this week. It made me think of your remarks about using creative magical gestures. 

If you haven’t seen the show, the characters in The OA make magic happen by using intricate and physically demanding dance-like movements. The moves are even a little frightening. 

He then included a link to one of many youtube videos where people are recreating these movements. 

Like this.

And here is a video of it taking place in the show itself.

What I find interesting is that if you search the internet for OA and movements you'll find a bunch of videos with people imitating these movements and posts about people wanting to learn them. Something really captured people about the movements even though, in and of themselves, they're not that interesting or fascinating.

Can you see anyone being intrigued by this if the characters had just snapped and the magic had happened?

I'm not saying you need some choreographed movements to make the magic happen, just something that's not completely dismissive about the notion that something unusual is actually taking place.

I hadn't intended to write about snapping again so soon, or ever again for that matter, but I thought this was a good example of how a mysterious (even if ultimately meaningless) impetus for the magic can be interesting to people.

If you have friends who are magicians maybe you should come up with a series of movements you can do to initiate a magic moment. It doesn't have to be this dramatic, it can be much more subtle. It can just be with your hands and arms if you don't want to incorporate your whole body. People doing shit in unison is kind of inherently creepy. Some kind of pounding in rhythm, then sliding your hand across the table, then pushing in towards the center, then the energy that's amassed in the center of the table can be passed from person to person, and whoever has it at the end of the ritual can do certain things or know certain things he shouldn't be able to.

I also agree with something GG wrote me in the email when he said that the breathing is one of the more powerful elements of the OA movements. So throw in some funky breathing too.

That may sound like some witchcraft type stuff to you, but I think it's just a little bit of theater for an art that can use it. This goes back to a lot of what I've written about unbelievable premises and why I prefer them as well as the Romantic Adventure style I wrote about on May 3rd.

In this case, contrary to most of my ideas, you are taking credit for the magic, but only through some kind of byzantine procedure, which is ultimately just another way of suggesting that what's happening is bigger than yourself. 

(I just googled snapping and "when the magic happens," and found this thread on the Cafe on the subject. Djurmann, the creator of the thread, raised the question of whether snapping, waving a wand, or sprinkling woofle dust diminishes the magic. 

I've made my thoughts clear on snapping, obviously.

Magic wands? They do probably have the same issues as snapping. But at least it shows some effort. Unless you use an "impromptu magic wand." I never understood that idea. "Pick up a pencil and use it as an impromptu magic wand." Huh? Isn't the wand supposed to have some power, or allow you to transmit some power? Do it with a pencil? So, are we suggesting that all that matters is the cylindricality of the object? That's the important aspect about the wand? Seems dubious. And it seems like magicians would constantly be accidentally causing magic to happen, what with all the time they spend with their thin, cylindrical dicks in their hands.

The one trick I used a wand for regularly was with one of those vanishing coin boxes. I'd place the coin in the box. Then I'd take out a velvet bag. Out of the bag I'd dump a long wooden box. I'd open the wooden box and there would be wand in there. The kind that screws together in the middle. I'd take out the two pieces and polish them with the bag. Then I'd screw them together. I'd hold the wand in different positions, at each point I'd kind of "weigh" the wand with my hand to make sure it was in the correct position. Once I'd found the correct position I'd tap the box. Then I'd unscrew the wand. Polish the two pieces. Place them in the box. Place the box in the bag. Then place the bag away. The whole process took maybe 75-90 seconds. Then I'd open the coin box. "The coin is gone! Want me to bring it back I'd say?" When they said yes I'd reach for the velvet bag again. "Oh, forget it," they'd say. I could then make the coin reappear in some strange location later.

And as far as Woofle Dust goes. I've made my position very clear on that. )

 

Any Man Behind Any Curtain

Coming in The JAMM #5

Any Man Behind Any Curtain

One of my ideas that is least loved by the magic community is that you should shift the focus of the effect off of yourself and your supposed powers. The primary benefit of this is presentational. If your performance style boils down to, "I'm a magician!" or "Look what I can do!" it's hard for that to come off as anything but childish. And it's all too easily dismissed. However if your performance style boils down to, "Look at this interesting thing," or "Huh... strange... what do you make of this?" then you're treating something weird not with patter or jokes or with a flourish and a "ta-daa!" Instead you're treating something weird as you might actually treat something weird in real life, and people feel thatThis is a fairly easy change to implement, but it's not a minor change at all. It's a pretty fundamental change in how you might choose to present your magic. 

And even when people completely understand it's a theatrical/"fake" experience, the fact that there's not an inherent neediness or show-off-iness to the presentation makes it an easier and more enjoyable pill to swallow and they'll want to play along more

Recently I've also begun exploring the benefits this approach has methodologically as well. One of my first explorations into this idea will be in The JAMM #5. It's called Any Man Behind Any Curtain and it's a version of ACAAN. The effect itself is fairly standard. But the interesting thing about this version is that it only works if you don't take credit for the magic. You need to present yourself as a witness to the magic, not the person behind it, or it completely falls apart.

This effect is really a "proof of concept" of an idea I think we may be able to take in some interesting directions in the future.

The Jerx is a reader-supported site. If you'd like to contribute you can do so with a monthly subscription to The JAMM