Mailbag #22

Ellusionist just sent out an email about the 1900s deck. Which is like the 1800s deck but a century newer I suppose. Do you have any uses for these? It seems like an old looking deck would have some potential. —DH

Yeah, I think these look great. The problem is, they feel brand new. So they’re good for display, but not good for something where the spectator is going to touch them. Which, for me, is most of the stuff I would want to do with them. Imagine a book with a dust-jacket that was designed to look old and tattered, but when you held it, you realized it was just printed that way. You would be more certain that that’s not really an old book than you would if I gave you something that wasn’t beaten up and just told you it was old. You would think, “Huh, well, maybe it is.” It’s the incongruity that would be suspicious.

That said, if you want an old looking card and you want to age them yourself, this would give you something of a head-start. Get them a little damp. Scuff them up a bit. Bang the corners on something.

Combine this with an Intercessor or similar gimmick and you can do some truly mind-blowing shit. As I described in this post.

---

I've been deep in a YouTube rabbit hole binging on videos by a freestyle rapper called Harry Mack.

This guy has an ability to freestyle rhyme that borders on the supernatural, and that's part of what made me see a parallel between what he does with strangers and what (good) magic, social or otherwise, should aim to do. 

Check out this video of him approaching strangers at Venice Beach. Notice how every stranger he approaches begins with a sceptical look on their face. In fact, they often look downright suspicious (not unlike when a magician takes out a deck of cards or vaguely proposes 'a psychological experiment'). But then something wonderful happens.

1. He tells them honestly what he intends to do.

2. He exudes genuine positive social emotion. If you aren't on board, you'll be the one who looks weird or standoffish, not him.

3. He demonstrates a skill that's truly worthy of attention. Freestyle rap sounds like it could be fucking lame (like magic), but he's clearly a virtuoso.

4. He makes the raps about them. His rapping is good in general, but the moment they hear him mention their hat or their randomly suggested word, their faces light up.

5. He doesn't make fun of them or play one person off another. Everyone is welcome. It's one big party.

6. He thanks them for their energy and participation - he doesn't overtly expect their admiration.

I think there's a lot that magicians can learn from this type of non-magic video about what people actually value in social interactions. […]

It's not a huge discovery (most magicians, even on the magic cafe, know that the best magic puts the spectator's emotions in the spotlight), but I thought that the wonder this rapper creates in such a short amount of time encapsulates that principle really nicely. —JM

I think it's a good analogous situation. I personally can't imagine walking up to someone randomly with the intent of "performing" for them in any context. That’s not really my scene. But for people who do do that sort of thing, you’ve outlined some good things to keep in mind. And they certainly apply in less overt types of performances as well.

You’ve reminded me of some thoughts I want to give out on cold approaching which I’ll put in a post next week.

---

You said posts this year were going to be “short and stupid” but I haven’t noticed that. Is that still the plan? —JP

That’s not only the plan, that’s what is going to happen. It has to or it will just be unsustainable, time-management wise. The posts will be shorter and I’ll be on the “first 20 days of the month” schedule that I mentioned when this season started. This is something like my 75th day in a row posting. No one needs to hear from me that much.

Memorized Deck Poll

Hey kids,

I’m not 100% committed to this idea, and I won’t necessarily be going with the popular vote. But it’s an idea I’ve been tossing around and I wanted to get your input.

Speaking of memorized decks, my friend (who is a stack aficionado and—for god knows what reason—has three different stacks memorized) ordered a Stack Watch from Ellusionist for his son. He received it yesterday and immediately facetime’d me to show it off. I have never seen anyone laugh harder in my life. Then he brought his 13-year-old son in and he lost his shit laughing as he tried to find a card and then rotate the bezel to a certain position and we were imagining this taking place during a trick. Watching him go from patter to looking at his watch for 16 seconds in an attempt to find the card, then jumping back into patter was one of the funniest things I’d ever seen. We were all crying. I want to thank Ellusionist for this because I love watching people laugh. It was one of the most joyous moments of my year. And in my mind it fully justified the existence of that product.

Here’s a game you can play. Tell someone to go to look at the picture of the watch on Ellusionist’s site and show them the cards around the bezel. Then say, “Find the seven of spades.” I played this with a few people. The shortest time was 10 seconds. The longest it took was 58 seconds.

Now, perhaps as you use the watch a lot you would become more familiar with where the cards are. Sure. I buy that. But that would be the most scattershot way of familiarizing yourself with mnemonica. It would take much less time to actually memorize a stack. And you wouldn’t have to be the type of person who walks around with a knock-off Rolex on your wrist.

Here’s the thing, if there was really a way to put a memorized deck crib on a watch in a way that was useful, readable, and not obvious to someone else looking at the watch, I’d be all for that. My criticism of this product is not, “Don’t be lazy. You should just memorize the deck of cards.” Why would I give a shit if anyone other than me is lazy? I don’t think it’s “lazy” to not memorize a deck. It’s just might not be your priority. And that’s fine with me. We all have different priorities. If you buy a pre-made cake at the grocery store instead of making one from scratch, I’m not going get on your ass about that. But Ellusionist isn’t offering a pre-made cake. They’re offering a bag of flour with a spoon in it and suggesting it’s about the same thing.

The ad says that it requires no work and no memory, anyone can find a card and its position with “one quick glance.” No. No, you can’t. In fact, it would legitimately be a magic trick if someone who didn’t know the stack already could find a card on the watch with a “quick glance.” I’d probably be more impressed by that than having a card at a number I named.

To be fair, I don’t know what Ellusionist’s definition of a “quick glance” is. If it’s at all similar to the “quick glances” magicians give to any chick at a magic convention showing a centimeter of skin, then I guess 10-60 seconds does fit that definition.

On a different subject, I will give Ellusionist credit for their new PIcasso Pro effect. I don’t have it yet, but it looks pretty good. (There are definitely some people who seem to be having issues with it though. So it’s better to do some more research before picking it up rather than just being swayed by me saying it “looks pretty good.”)

I would probably buy my own URL and forward it to the required page… assuming that’s possible. Otherwise you’re at the mercy of the trick’s URL staying secret.

Speaking of URLs… here’s a note for Ellusionist regarding this trick. I’m not going to mention the main URL here, so that it doesn’t show up in anyone’s google search who you wouldn’t want it to. But shouldn’t the main URL go to a generic landing page? Why would you direct them to a subdirectory that’s identical to the main page? This may seem nitpicky, but if anyone does question the site itself, isn’t the first thing they’re going to do be to look at the main page? And wouldn’t it be strange that it’s the exact same as the page you sent them to? It’s just an odd design choice, in my opinion. But maybe no one really gives a shit about any of this.

Art of Astonishment Project

Like many magicians, I’m a big Paul Harris fan and his Art of Astonishment trilogy was one of the most exciting magic releases of my lifetime. If you also have a nostalgic place in your heart for these books, I want to draw your attention to a project on youtube that Paul Harris fan, and Jerx supporter, Dani Marko has been working on for a couple of years. He’s attempting to film all the effects in the entire trilogy. He’s up to 70 effects as of this point in time.

I like this project for a few reasons. First, because I have a soft spot for any big dumb project. Second because it’s reminding me of a number of tricks that I used to do or thought of doing that I should really put in the rotation. And finally because I’m seeing some tricks in a new light that didn’t quite jump off the page for me originally. For example, here’s Griffin Under Glass, which is an effect I read many times but never really thought of performing. But now seeing it, I think it would probably be quite fooling for someone who doesn’t know what’s coming.

I don’t know if this project will haver a broad appeal to all magicians. But if you bought the books back in the mid-90s I think you’ll be into it. Sure, a lot of of Paul’s stuff had been on video before that, but much of it wasn’t. And youtube was still a decade away. So there was nowhere to see some of it other than doing it yourself. It was a very different time. If the Art of Astonishment books came out today… well, they probably wouldn’t be books. They’d be instant downloads. Paul would have a bad beard and work for Ellusionist and teach his effects while sipping whiskey and talking about how much sloppy poontang he gets when he performs Vacuum Cleaner Cards at the bars. “Yeesh, what a mess.”

Dani tells me he wishes he was a more “competent performer” but for my purposes of seeing some of these effects in action for the first time, he’s more than adequate.

Full warning, he speaks some kind of nonsense language (sounds made up to me). But if you’re familiar with the effects from the books, you won’t be lost. And honestly, regardless of what gobbledygook he’s speaking, it’s definitely going to make more sense than Paul Harris’ original patter.

Here’s Twinkie Bottle, another effect I’ve always wanted to see performed, but haven’t until now. (On GayTube they have a whole section for “Twink’s Butthole” but I learned the hard way that that’s something else entirely. (If you clicked that link and now you’re mad at me… what exactly were you expecting?))

I also like some of the personal touches which Dani brings to the effects. Check out what he does with the sticker in his performance of Paul’s effect, Apple.

What I particularly like about this project more-so than ones where people are doing a trick a day or a new trick a week for a year, or whatever, is that you can complete those projects and only do stuff thats good or stuff you like. If Dani completes this, he will to have to push himself to some tricks he wouldn’t gravitate to otherewise. That makes it a more interesting challenge, in my book. And he’ll have to do some of Paul’s stinkers too. (There’s not too many of them in the Art of Astonishment. The real challenge would be to do all the tricks of Paul’s that he left out of the AoA trilogy. Those are the ones that range from “not great” to “truly dogshit.”)

What's the Worst Thing About: Nate Staniforth's Making Tricks Into Magic Course

A couple months ago I offered people a way to advertise their product on this site for free. And that was for them to send me what they were offering and then I would write a post documenting what I felt were the worst things about that product. (I gave my rationale for this in that post.) Oddly enough, this didn’t turn out to be a super popular idea with people who were putting out magic products.

But now we have our first person willing to take me up on the offer, and that is Nate Staniforth with his online workshop, Making Tricks into Magic.

This is a two-hour online course teaching a series of techniques (and two tricks) for more powerful magic. This is based on Nate’s many years of professional performing.

The course is nicely put together and easy to navigate through. What I appreciate is that there isn’t unnecessary rambling. He gets to the point quickly in each “chapter” of the course. He’s an engaging speaker who has clearly given these things a lot of thought. I like both tricks he teaches (make sure you watch until the end of the course to get some upgrades on the second trick which should make it much stronger). I think anyone who is performing or considering performing professionally will find at least a couple concepts here which should have a positive impact on their magic. And for 50-ish bucks, that seems definitely worth it for the working pro.

Nate and I have some similar philosophies in regards to our approach towards, and our goals for magic. So if you like this site and you’re curious about a professional’s approach to this sort of thing, then I would recommend you pick up the project.

Technically you don’t need to be a professional magician. I think his ideas translate pretty well across the board, regardless of your performing environment. But that is the background that he’s bringing to the this.

Yes, but what are the worst things about this project?

I’ll give you three.

1. If you’re not good at extrapolating, you might find things to be a little too succinct. I appreciated the fact that everything was broken down into “chapters” that only lasted a few minutes each, but I would bet there are some people who would want things explained in more detail.

2. In a similar vein, I think there needs to be more tricks incorporated in the course. Yes, yes, I know, we all have more tricks than we could possibly need. But the way to explain magic theory is through the language of tricks. Even if Nate didn’t want to get into teaching and explaining a bunch of different tricks (I get that), I think he could have used more tricks as examples to help demonstrate his theories. So he wouldn’t even have to teach them, necessarily. Use a standard trick or standard performance and break it down and rebuild it using the techniques described in the course.

3. This picture…

For the next week, Nate is offering a 10% discount for people who use the code jerxreaders. I told him if I ended up really hating the project I wouldn’t mention the discount code as that would have been a little weird. “Hey, this is shit… And here’s 10% off that shit!” But that’s not the case here.

If you have a new product or project and you’d like me to tell people the worst parts about it, you can read about how to do that here.

Better with The Jerx Contest

April is over. Those who entered the Better with Weber contest were asked to identify some goal they were going to achieve during the month. Did you do it? I bet you didn’t! Wait… there was a real sing-songy delivery to my skepticism there that I don’t think was conveyed.

🎶I bet you diiiiid-n’t! 🎶

Hopefully that captures my attitude.

Look, it’s hard to keep to a goal if you don’t have a strategy in place. And it’s also hard to figure out a strategy when it comes to productivity and goals because different things motivate people differently. (Some productivity books will tell you to keep your goals a secret. Some will tell you to broadcast them publicly so you can be held accountable. Neither is right or wrong in general. But one is probably right or wrong for you.) So if you didn’t achieve your goal for the month, change your approach and try again.

But if you did reach the goal you committed to in the Better with Weber contest, then you can now take part in the Better with The Jerx contest which I mentioned back on April 7th.

Here’s how it works

1. By 11:59 PM ET, May 11th—a week from today—send me an email with the subject line: Better With You

2. In the body of the email reiterate what your original goal was.

3. And include the best proof you can offer that you achieved this goal. Or at the very least that you put in the required effort to achieve this goal. You can attach documents or pictures. Ideally if it’s a video you should upload it to youtube (unlisted if you want) and just send me the link.

4. I will rate your evidence on a scale of 0-10. Zero means I’m not convinced at all by your proof and 10 means I’m fully convinced. Whatever number I rate your proof as, that’s how many entries you’ll get in the drawing for the next prize package. (What is completely convincing proof? That would depend on what your goal was, I guess. Essentially it would be something that I—if I were in your position—couldn’t fake. I may have a couple judges who would be willing to contact you over video chat if it’s something that needs to be demonstrated in real time. You can submit a video of your spouse vouching for you, but if it has a real Taliban vibe to it, it won’t be that convincing. Hey, I gave you ample warning this was coming so you could try and figure something out.)

The winner will receive the 2020 Jerx Supporter Rewards Package. If you’re already a supporter I will refund your money or you can bestow the package to someone else. It’s up to you how you want to handle it.

Note: Nothing about your goals or the proof you provide will be shared here or anywhere, or with anyone else. (Unless it turns out to be interesting or relevant to this site and you give me your express permission to share it.)

The drawing will be held sometime next week. I think you have a pretty good chance of winning if you enter with convincing proof. 250 entered the original Better with Weber contest. This entry pool can only be a subset of number. How many will have achieved their goal and will go to the effort to submit proof of that? 10-20% maybe? I don’t know. Maybe I’ll be surprised.

The Juxe: Favorite Newish Music - May 2020

[I have a very convoluted system for processing new music, so it often takes me a while to get to new releases. That’s why this series refers to “newish” music, i.e., stuff from the last year or so.]

Divorce by Alex Cameron (Alternative Pop/Rock, Singer/Songwriter - Sydney, Australia)

I’ve never been divorced, so I’ve never had an acrimonious divorce. I don’t know if that makes me more or less capable of appreciating this song.

Listen for: That first line in the chorus. I like when things don’t sound like song lyrics. That sounds like something you’d overhear from a couple arguing in a booth at Applebees.

Party Animal by Phantom Planet (Rock - Los Angeles, California)

Listen for: The stupid but catchy chorus. “Part animal, part party-animal,” is a great way to describe yourself in a job interview or in your online dating profile so people know you’re a cool dude who likes to party.

Search for Life by Dirty Projectors (Experimental Pop Folk - Brooklyn, New York)

Listen For: The moment the backing vocals go from “Ooh” to “Aah.”

The strings on the studio recording are nice, but this live version really emphasizes the backing harmonies which are gorgeous.

The Vanishing

For the second time in the history of this site, the draft message that contained all the ideas I had for future posts—in the neighborhood of 400+ post ideas—was somehow deleted. And I say “somehow” because I guess I deleted it, but I have no memory of doing such a thing. And deleting draft messages is not something I regularly do, so I can’t see myself doing it on autopilot. But hey, what’s done is done.

But here’s a note to my google-employed readers, of which I know I have a few: What’s the rush to make my draft message vanish from the face of the fucking earth? Why doesn’t it go to the trash where I can recover it should something like this occur? If I delete a message from Old Navy telling me of their Wacky for Khaki Summer Sale, I have 30 days to ruminate, second guess myself, change my mind and retrieve it from the trash. Do I really want to get rid of this meaningless junk mail informing me of their BOGO sale on mid-rise board shorts? Well, don’t worry, because I have a goddamned lunar cycle to mull it over.

But if—mistakenly, or in a moment of pique—you delete that draft love letter you’ve been working on for 6 weeks to that woman you’ve been pining over for two decades, or that draft of a letter of reconciliation between you and your father that you’ve been carefully crafting since his cancer diagnosis, or that draft of your revised will, or that draft of 400 blog post ideas… well, you’re fucked. It’s been <GLORPED!> into the void. Vanishing like a dream. Without so much as a, “Are you sure you’d like to delete this draft?” Which is strange because I would suggest that, on average, people’s drafts are more important to them than whatever random emails they happen to receive (and which they have a month to retrieve if they get deleted).

That being said, I don’t blame Google. Even if it was some sort of bug or random quirk. I should have had a better system in place. Especially since it happened to me once before. I now do have a better system. Well, better in the sense of “less likely to have everything disappear.” It’s mildly less convenient, but that’s the trade-off I guess.

I’m not worried about the lost post ideas. This incident happened back in mid-April. Of the approximately 400 or so that were lost, I was able to remember a couple hundred over the course of the next few days. Another 100 were probably stupid or ones I was never going to get to anyway. 50 more will probably come back to me in time. (One way you can help: If you sent me an email about something and I said, “I’ll cover this on the site sometime,” or something along those lines, feel free to write in and remind me about it, because it may have been one of the ones that slipped my mind.) So that accounts for most of them.

The only thing I’m mildly bummed about is that there were definitely some ideas in there that were just brief flashes of inspiration that I’ll probably never remember/think of again, and they may have been the sort of thing that would grow into something worthwhile.

Oh well! It doesn’t matter. I’ll come up with better ideas than the ones that were lost.

Have a good weekend.