Gardyloo #56

"You're not thinking of a red card, are you?... I knew it."

If you use this type of sentence structure in the course of some sort of fishing in a mentalism routine, there's a decent chance you're not very good at what you do. I can make that statement because being a good mentalist (or magician) means being able to listen to your audience and give an honest assessment of what works and what doesn't work.

This weaselly sentence structure (that some mentalists suggest will be seen as a "hit" either way) has never—in the history of mentalism—come across as anything other than the mentalist flailing to get a piece of information that he has no clue about.

I've made this point before (in more detail) in an earlier post on this site.

This ploy has never caused a single spectator to think, "Wow, how did you know that?" And the reason it doesn't is because it's a question. It's said as a question. And your spectator realizes it's a question. 

But Andy, I've heard many famous magicians and mentalists use this sort of sentence structure while fishing.

I've seen it used by dozens of mentalists and magicians too. And when the spectator knows the potential options are binary, this only ever comes across as a dodgy guess. (If the spectator doesn't know the options are binary—if, for example, you know they're thinking of one of two cards, but they think they could have been thinking of any card in the deck—then this ploy is a little less transparent.)

In the previously linked post I suggest the alternative I use (which is to make a definitive statement and be right 50% of the time and deal with being wrong the other 50% of the time). I find this much preferable than coming across like a goon 100% of the time.

Here is 5th Beatle, Devin Knight, trying to use this tactic in his recent Penguin Live lecture. You'll notice the spectator doesn't react as if he's provided information, she reacts as if she's giving him information, because she is. And what does the audience do? They laugh, because it such a shitty, obvious gambit that they assume he must have meant it as a joke.


I had an email this week about the subject of hecklers and I was reminded of something that I want you to keep in mind if you're a non-professional. Especially if you're younger.

There is something that is true only for amateur magicians and for those who reach the status of, say, David Copperfield, and that is this:

You never have to perform for anyone who isn't 100% into engaging with your performance and enjoying the interaction.

Strolling performers, restaurant performers, guys who do corporate shows or school shows, kids performers—magicians at almost every other level— they have to work to win people over, at least some of the time. But you don't have to if you don't want to. 

As I said, this is primarily geared at younger performers who are concerned about dealing with antagonistic spectators, although it's true for all of us.

But understand what heckling is. Heckling is not someone saying, "You turned over two cards," or, "You still have the coin in that hand." That's not heckling, that's helping. Address the weakness in your technique or in the effect and you'll only get better. You don't need to fear this. If someone busts you, just say, "Damn. You got me." Don't let your ego get involved.

"Heckling" is when someone is unwilling to engage with the experience in a positive manner. You have the power in this situation because you can just choose not to perform for these people. It can be confusing because magic has the element of trickery going on so performers often confuse people not being fooled or noticing some element of the method as them being "hecklers," but don't get caught up in that trap. Remove the magic element altogether. Instead imagine yourself doing something respectable... like being a stripper. If you were an amateur stripper, stripping for someone who was being hostile, you'd just step off stage. You'd feel no inclination to perform for them, instead you'd go find the audience who is drooling, whooping, and creaming their jeans over your fat ta-tas and entertain them.


Penguin magic has hosted about 280 different lecturers for their Penguin Live series. Of those, I believe seven have died:

  • Tom Mullica
  • Daryl
  • Aldo Colombini
  • Harry Anderson
  • Bob Cassidy
  • Eugene Burger 
  • Don England

(When I say, "I believe," I don't mean that I'm not sure that those guys are all dead. I mean there might be more I'm not remembering.)

Now look, I'm not suggesting anything nefarious here. Just pointing out that if you lectured for Penguin there is a 1 in 40 chance you're dead. Test pilots and ice road truckers don't die that frequently.

Actually, what really made me think about this was the passing of Harry Anderson. His daughter and I run in the same circles and she's always been a delightful person to be around.

I was thinking of her and her father recently and so I rewatched her father's Penguin live lecture and I was very happy to have this record of his teaching and talking about magic.

You may not remember, but when the Penguin lectures first started, they got a lot of flack. I can't remember the reason why. I have a feeling there wasn't a reason why beyond, "This is something new so I don't like it." But now, a few years later, isn't it fortunate that we have good quality video of these people not only performing, but teaching magic as well (in a relaxed, conversational way—as opposed to the way they might teach on a commercially released magic DVD)? 

The fact of the matter is, that list of dead magicians... that's just going to get longer. And these live lectures are just going to become more valuable as a record of those we've lost as both people and performers. This may sound like the world's most morbid sponsored post, but no one's paying me shit for this. It's just something that was on my mind.

Here's a thought for Penguin. The next time someone dies (the smart money is on Andi Gladwin) make their lecture half price for a few days and donate all the proceeds to a charity chosen by the deceased's family. It's a win-win for everyone. And no, this isn't just some clever ploy of mine to save $15 by suffocating Josh Janousky and then picking up his lecture at a discounted rate.

Antica...

Supporter of the site, Steve. F, writes:

The Spring issue of X-Communication was really great. I bought the app you mentioned and ordered a couple of the other items too. I wrote you last year to say you reignited my old interest in magic which had dissipated over the past 20 years and that's still true.[Ed. Note: I've redacted some stuff here that is uncomfortably flattering.] I'm looking forward to the next book in a way I haven't looked forward to a magic purchase since I was young. 

Hey, thanks, Steve.

I'm happy to hear that you're looking forward to the book. I'm pretty excited about it myself.

I have a theory that I want to touch on briefly here. (I'll expand on it one day when I write my Guide to Life.)

I believe that anticipation keeps you happy and your mind and heart young.

The happiest people I know have things on the horizon they're looking forward to. I don't mean big things like buying a house or starting a company. I mean they have a lot of little trivial things they're excited about.

Maybe it's easier to find little things to be excited about when you're happy, but I think it also works the other way. I think if you find things to look forward to, you'll be happier generally.

At all times you should have something in each one of the categories (and once it comes to pass, you replace it with something else):

Anticipation Checklist

  • A movie you're looking forward to
  • A book you're looking forward to
  • An album you're looking forward to
  • A tv show you're looking forward to
  • A meal you're looking forward to
  • An event or outing (concert, play, author reading, amusement park visit, comedy show, athletic event) you're looking forward to
  • A party you're looking forward to (if no one invites you to parties then start throwing two every year: a summer gathering and a holiday party)
  • A trip you're looking forward to
  • Someone you're looking forward to seeing (or meeting for the first time)
  • A sexual encounter you're looking forward to
  • Something you're looking forward to in regards to a hobby (a magic book, a video game, a comic)
  • A plan you're looking forward to executing

The Times They Are A-Changin'

One of the things I always thought would happen when I started writing about amateur/social magic is that people would come out and say, "Oh, yes, here are the other books on the subject that were written over the past 100 years that you don't know about because you're a magic ignoramus." But that never happened. There were a few things here and there directed towards amateurs, but very little that looked at it seriously. Since I've started this site there has been more talk about it (because I am, obviously, a world-class thought-leader) but still not that much. It makes sense though. because while there is a huge population of amateur magicians, most of them perform rather infrequently. And to get useful insights and ideas, you really need to be out performing regularly. But the people who are performing regularly tend to be professionals, so most of what you read is from that perspective. To perform a lot as an amateur, you have to be independently wealthy or have stumbled into a situation where you started a magic blog that eventually evolved into a situation where people financially support the site which allows you to spend a lot of time trying out new material and going to bars, restaurants, coffee-shops, libraries, etc. in order to generate more social interactions and try out different ideas.  As I've said before, I'm the world's first professional amateur magician.  

I bring this up because what I want to talk about today is something that is a fundamental tool for the social magician. And it's something we should obviously be taking advantage, but there is almost nothing written about it in the magic literature because it's not a tool that is available to the professional performer. So no one bothers writing about it. Even people who aren't professional performers will tend to create magic to be used in a professional situation, so they ignore this tool too.

The tool I'm talking about is Time.

giphy.gif

As I was talking with a friend about some of the unpublished routines that will be in Magic For Young Lovers, I realized that a number of them followed a very non-traditional time-table for a magic trick. There's a trick that starts in the evening and ends the next morning, another that takes days (potentially weeks) to play out and concludes at a time you (the magician) don't choose, another where you "expose" a trick a couple hours after performing it and the exposure is actually more unbelievable than the effect.

The professional magician usually has to wrap up a trick in a few minutes. If he has a full-length show, he may be able to start a trick at the beginning of the show and wrap it up at the end, but he's still generally limited by the boundaries of the show itself.

As social magicians, we're often not constrained by the same time boundaries. And I've found that messing with the time element of a trick is a very good way to give people a richer experience than they may have with a more standard presentation. (I'm not suggesting that you need to turn every 2-minute trick into a 2-hour ordeal, but sometimes it's worth it.)

I would suggest if you have an idea for a trick that you feel is solid, but you're not getting the reactions you want from it, or it feels somewhat inconsequential, that you mess with the time-line in regards to how the trick plays out. I've found this to be a reliable way to generate a deeper experience from effects and it may be the key to amplifying the reactions you're getting from the trick.

Ideas and Examples

Let's say you meet someone at a party and they find out you do magic or mentalism. They write down a word (on an impression pad) tear off the page and you read their mind. This may or may not be a good trick depending on how you go about it. 

But consider this instead. They write down a word on a piece of paper, fold it up and put it in their pocket. "To be clear," you say, "I'm not really psychic. And I'm just learning how to pretend to be. So I'm not just going to be able to guess what you wrote. But I bet by the end of the night I'll figure it out." Maybe you actually wager some money on it.

Now, instead of a 1 minute trick, you're able to weave this effect all through the night. As the party goes on you check in with her from time to time, trying to get a feel for what she might have written down. Maybe you ask her some bizarre questions that you imply are designed to allow you a peek into her subconscious. Maybe you show her a funny video on youtube and while you're doing it she catches you trying to steal the slip of paper from her pocket ("What? I didn't say I'd read your mind, just that I'd somehow figure out what you wrote.")

And there can be different beats that play out throughout the night as you attempt different ways to figure out the word. In a professional show, a 10-minute presentation to guess a word is likely going to fall flat. But for the social magician, a presentation that is broken up into 10 one-minute moments throughout the night could be very fun. In this case because it's more than a trick, it's also a game (and if you're at all charming you could turn this into a playful flirtation (if you needed me to tell you this, you're not at all charming, don't try it)).

The night ends and you approach her with $20 in your hand. "You win. I have no idea." But as you give her the bill your hands touch and then you grasp her hand and twitch your eyes, Dead Zone style. "Wait... no... I got it... it's... doormouse." (Or however you choose to reveal you know the word.)

IMG_4701.GIF

 

✿✿✿

I've mentioned before the Michael Weber idea of splitting up a multi-phase routine over the course of several interactions with a person.

This is a great way of extending the moment and using "time" to make a trick feel different. Look, a 10-phase ambitious card routine is—almost by definition—going to peter off after a couple phases. But if you just do three phases and then keep the person's signed card on your bookshelf and every time they visit you're like, "Remember this card you signed that kept rising to the top of the deck? Well I thought maybe if the deck was bound in rope then the positions of the cards couldn't change...but check this out." In other words, you could do a single phase each time you see them. Then, rather than having a jumble of moments in their head after one long multi-phase effect, they would have this one moment they could keep with them (at least until the next time you see each other).

✿✿✿

Other ways of using a time element to give people a different experience.

  • Tell someone you're working on a new trick, fail at it a couple times, and then a week later perform it for them and nail it.
  • Send someone a text in the afternoon asking them to stop by on their way home because you have something cool to show them.
  • Teach them a trick and then months later say, "I've been working on that trick I taught you." And show them something similar but with a wildly different method they could never conceive of. 

I would also direct you to the Presenting Coincidences post from a couple weeks ago for an example of what I consider a very satisfying modification of the "time" element of a standard trick.

I have more thoughts on this that will come out in the future, but this isn't the type of thing you really need someone to guide you through. With a little thought you'll find ways to adjust the time it takes for an effect to play out so that the tenor of the overall experience changes.