A Couple Trick Updates*

For a while now, I’ve wanted a D’lite where the lite fades up for my trick White Nocturne. I thought it would look more magical if the snowball slowly starts to glow.

Well, friend of the site, Toby H., informs me that just such a glowing thumb-tip now exists.

Toby tells me, “Having an LED fade-in is a bit of a tricky business, especially at a micro level.” And I guess that’s reflected in the price. While D’LItes are about $10, and I’ve seen knockoffs for just a few dollars, this one is…

$65.

Is it worth that much for a subtle change to a trick I might just get to do a couple of times a year?

I don’t know. I’m still thinking about it. Regardless, whether for that trick or something else, I wanted to bring this to your attention as it was something that went under my radar.

---

On page 37 of my third book, TOY, there’s a trick that requires the switch of a bookmark.

Alexander FC wrote me a while ago with this alternative to the handling I offered, demonstrated here with a playing card…

A description of the mechanics can be found in the video below.

Both of us feel it’s quite possible this has been done before. Of course, there’s the related idea where the torn corner pops out of the deck of cards when you riffle it. But if there’s some credit or history I should give about doing this with a book and a bookmark, let me know.

UPDATE: The most direct predecessor to this that I’ve been informed about so far is The Book Change by Chris Brown.

What makes this particularly good for the trick mentioned above it that in that trick, you’re using a bookmark, and it’s an invisible change. So rather than putting a playing card or a dollar bill into a book and having it obviously change (which is probably not the most deceptive thing), you’re putting in something to act as a bookmark and then seemingly removing that same thing later.

Cigar Chop'er

I thought this was a great idea from supporter from. Salim K. It’s an alternative to Craig Petty’s Chop gimmick. I’m not really in the population that could use this regularly, but for those who are, I think it could have many potential uses (as Chop itself has many potential uses).

Here’s Salim’s email to me…

I performed a modified Abraham Presley from your 7.14.22 post last night.  Every few months our core group of 5 guys go to dinner and smoke cigars into the night at one of our homes.  I’d been preparing to make this my debut effect for them for a while now. 4 of them have never seen me do anything, 1 of them has.

My modification is super simple and ended up being excellent albeit very circumstantial for how we gather and interact which made it impossible for them to fathom.  Instead of the Chop gimmick I took a 20mm x 1mm magnet with me.  I had practiced and prepared the idea of nonchalantly sliding the magnet under a cigar label prior to lighting the cigar.  I did this because I didn’t want to be there pulling a Sharpie out of my pocket (too unusual) and I didn’t want to fret with having to maybe swap for the gimmick if my friend had a Sharpie at his house which in and of itself was a risk.  Using the lit cigar as the gimmick was just incredible.  It allowed me to use any pen he could find at home and since we smoke outside in the dark ink matching perfectly wasn’t a concern.  I just had to bet on him finding a black pen.  I made my gimmick drawings using regular black pen instead of a Sharpie marker.

Made it seem like I literally created a monster effect with the same collection of stuff we always have on hand.  They didn’t even fully realize I was performing until I was like 25% into it all.

Blew 4 of the smartest 50yr olds most people will ever meet completely out of their chairs, I wish I recorded it. —Salim

That’s the idea, sliding a magnet under a cigar band to use as a Chop-style tool.

I suppose you could also play around with the idea of slicing into a cigar and implanting a magnet inside of it. But then you’d have to somehow deal with the magnet as you smoked your cigar (or stop smoking it before you get to that point).

Obviously, if you don’t smoke cigars… you should start!

No. If you don’t smoke cigars, this idea may be of little use to you, unless you utilize it during a special occasion. Like one of those occasions where people who don’t regularly smoke cigars do for the evening.

But if you do smoke cigars, this is something you could use somewhat regularly. Not necessarily for the Abraham Presley routine mentioned above, but for any routine you could do with Craig’s Chop gimmick.

If there’s a weakness with Chop it’s that you have to be holding a Sharpie through much of the trick. You can often justify that. Or say you’re using it as a “magic wand,” but that can come off a little hokey in a casual performing environment.

But it’s perfectly natural to hold a cigar as you’re smoking it. That’s what you do with cigars. (Bill Clinton not withstanding.)

If you have an idea in mind for this, but you don’t smoke cigars, you could justify it by indicating you need the smoke for what you’re going to do, or there’s some scent-based Imp involved that clouds the spectator’s mind or heightens something in yours, or you could say, “I stopped smoking these years ago. But I allow myself one, on occasion, as a celebration… if I’m able to pull this off.”

The Minitoire and The Shadow

CP writes:

“I’ve kept up my 100 trick repertoire since you first introduced the idea, and it took my magic to another level. But now in the last 2 years I got married, had a kid, and got a job that’s keeping me much busier than I’ve been in years and the repertoire has fallen by the wayside. Do you have any advice on keeping up the repertoire when life gets busy?”

First, check your priorities.

Would it be possible to adopt the child out? Or quit your job?

If no, then we might have to make changes to how you approach your repertoire.

The 100-Trick Repertoire concept was created to battle against two things:

1. The idea that was trotted out in magic about how you don’t need to know a lot of tricks. You just need to do a few tricks well. “Why is everyone always buying new magic? [Insert dull old magician’s name] did the same four tricks for fifty years!” This is fine if your concern is what you’re going to do for the Keith-Albee circuit. But in social magic, you need to have more varied offerings and evolve more.

2. The other thing I was fighting against was my own propensity to learn a trick, do it for a couple of weeks while it was shiny and new in my mind, and then have it fully fall off my radar completely.

So the 100-Trick Repertoire was something you could build and maintain to give you a wide variety of material to perform, and to keep tricks from falling into obscurity after you’ve performed them a few times.

But it is somewhat of a luxury practice. It requires some time every month to rehearse the tricks in your repertoire that need rehearsing. And time to seek out new material. And time to think of ways of presenting the tricks you know. And just time to occasionally read through the repertoire and refresh your memory about the tricks you know.

If magic is your primary hobby, and life isn’t too busy, this isn’t a huge investment of time. A couple of hours week is very doable.

But if you’re juggling a number of hobbies or life is particularly hectic at the moment, you may not have time to devote to the project.

For you people, let me introduce…

The Minitoire

The Minitoire is a mini-repertoire.

And just like the Minotaur was part-bull, part man...

The Minitoire is part-“I want to have a healthy, ever-evolving, vibrant repertoire” and part-“I have so little time at the moment and I’m worn out by 9pm every night.”

The Minitoire is a 12-trick repertoire, made up of three tricks, in four areas.

So think of four broad areas you want to be prepared to perform in and then pick three tricks in each area.

For example, I might choose:

3 tricks I can do with a borrowed deck.

3 tricks I can do with nothing on me but my phone.

3 tricks I can do with some “interesting object” I keep on display at home

3 tricks I can do with a small prop or gimmick I might carry around with me when I go out.

This will keep you prepared for a good variety of performing situations.

Once a month, take 20 minutes to run through these 12 tricks. If they’re not complicated, you can probably run through many of them in your head.

Swap in new tricks in these categories as often as you like.

The 12 tricks in your Minitoire aren’t the only ones you’ll ever perform, but they’re the only tricks you’re required to actively tend to and rehearse once a month.

There are some tricks that are so easy or so ingrained in you that you don’t really need to rehearse them or think much about them. You’ll still do these tricks from time to time when you think to do one. But you don’t need to put them in your Minitoire. This is your Shadow Repertoire. Tricks that sort of linger in the background of your brain and require no upkeep on your part.

Your full repertoire consists of:

The Minitoire — the tricks that you’re putting some effort into rehearsing and keeping at the front of your mind.

The Shadow Repertoire — the tricks you just sort of know.

For example, if someone hands me a deck of cards to show a trick, I have three tricks from my Minitoire that I’m completely comfortable and on top of and feel ready to perform at all times. So I’m never fumbling in my head wondering what to perform. And I also have a bunch of old card tricks in my Shadow Repertoire that might occur to show them instead, if I’m feeling that.

When you take a trick out of your Minitoire, add it to a list that you keep on your phone or your computer. Once every three months, read through that list to remind you of some of these tricks. Maybe you want to add them back to the Minitoire. Or maybe you remember them enough that they can exist in the Shadow.

I think you need some structure to your repertoire, even if you don’t have a lot of time to devote to it. Otherwise you’ll just perform one go-to trick all the time, or your mind will blank out when someone asks you to perform.

The Minitoire and Shadow Repertoire is a good minimalistic way of structuring your repertoire, without having to devote a ton of time to it.

Mailbag #126

Last Friday’s post never got scheduled for some reason. So if you were wondering where it was, it was just an f-up on my end. There will be an extra post at the end of this month to make up for it.

---

I know you’re not much of a fan of the classic force but I used the In and Out technique with the classic force today and it worked shockingly well. I used it with Vanishing Inc’s planetarium trick and the reactions I got with this version were far beyond when I just used the classic force by itself. Perhaps using it with the classic force is something you might want to suggest to people.—TL

Yeah, I’m not sure if it’s a matter of this technique working well with the classic force, so much as it is that it would work well with any force.

Combining deceptions is something I’ve been writing about for a while.

I believe that combining methods is like the Square-Cube Law. The Square-Cube Law tells us that when the size of something doubles, its mass doesn’t double. Its mass is eight times what it was before.

Combining methods is like that. When you have a trick that’s based on one deception and then add another to the mix, it makes the trick much more than twice as deceptive.

The In and Out Technique adds an equivocal beat to any force you might be doing (cross-cut, slip force, classic force, cull force). So if the force you’re doing isn’t already based on equivoque, then adding it to the forcing procedure can boost the deceptiveness significantly.

---

In yesterday’s post you mentioned you keep only a small magic library. I’d be really interested (and I imagine the rest of your readers would be too) in knowing what titles you have on your shelf. —CC

I never love giving a specific list of stuff like this because it always ends up sounding much more definitive than it is. It sounds like I’m declaring The Jerx Must-Have Magic Books, when really I’m just saying, “these are the books that I personally like to revisit.” Nostalgia plays a big role in my choices, perhaps more so than the contents of the books themselves.

So here are some of the books I often return to, I’ve probably mentioned them all in the past (given that they are, in fact, the books I return to frequently).

Simply Harkey by David Harkey

This was one of, if not my first, real magic book. At the time, I didn’t know how different it would be from most other magic books, with it’s truly unique premises across a broad range of props.

I don’t do a ton of magic from this book. But I still find it inspiring to read through, and it bring me back to being 13-years-old.

If anyone knows David Harkey, tell him I want him back in the magic world, and I’ll do whatever I can to help make that happen.

As of this writing, Simply Harkey can only be found online used. Most often I see it somewhere between $100 and $150.

The Collected Almanac by Richard Kaufman and The Jinx by Theodore Annemann

The Collected Almanac is one of my other early magic books. The Jinx I found later in life. Both are examples of one of my favorite genres of books—compilations of magic newsletters. Harry Lorayne’s Apocalypse is another example (although I don’t own those books in hardcover). Compilations like these have the most re-readability for me. There’s such a wide variety of material and creators that you’re bound to stumble on something new that grabs you each time you return to it.

The 80s and 90s was the peak of the magic newsletter because of the advent of desktop publishing (and maybe cocaine). It was also before the magic video boom and the internet, so if you had a cool trick, the magic newsletters were one of the few outlets that you had to release it. That trick you see on Penguin now as a $15 instant download would have been in Apocalypse or Richard’s Almanac in 1986.

Richard’s Almanac, Apocalypse, and the Jinx (among others) also had personality. You got to know the people behind them over time, so there was a “realness” to the character behind the writing. It’s sort of like this blog, where you’ve gotten to know me over a decade. Often when people try and put personality into a stand-alone book, it comes off kind of fake or off-putting because it’s not something you’ve been gradually exposed to. It’s just someone writing with some weird energy out of nowhere, and you’re thinking, “Just write-up the stupid trick.”

The Collected Almanac has been reprinted and is available online for about $95.

Bannon’s Book

John Bannon has some classic effects, but even the ones that aren’t “hits” are still mostly really solid “album tracks.” Bannon is my comfort food of card magic. I’ll revisit his books every year or two and almost always find a new trick that calls to me.

Most of Bannon’s books can still be found for sale online.

The Art of Astonishment Books

I think it’s hard for younger magicians to understand the excitement that built up for these books over the course of months in the mid-90s. I don’t know any books these days that come close to it. There’s so much material in these books that you really can’t absorb it all in one read through (even if you take weeks to read it), which is why it’s a series I return to often.

All three books can be found at Vanishing Inc for $135 total.

Mythology Codex by Phill Smith

One thing I hate about magic books is they’re all so large that you’d look like a fucking lunatic if you were reading one on a bus or a park bench or in a coffee shop (where I spend hours every day). When I started writing books, one of the things I kept in mind was I wanted people to be able to put it in a bag and read it on vacation. You can’t do that with Mythology Codex. Your bag wouldn’t fit in the overhead compartment. Mythology Codex is more designed to bash someone’s skull in than to be read casually.

That being said, it’s a beautiful book and it has content that I find very rewarding to revisit.

You can still order this from Phill for 150 pounds.

There’s more to my library than these, but these are the books (other than my own) that I return to most frquently.

In & Out

This is a small bit of equivocal language that can work in a number of situations, but I’ll describe how you might use it with a marked deck and a force.

Give the deck to your friend and have them shuffle it up.

When they’re done, get a look at the markings on the top card.

“Okay, before we do anything, I’m going to write something down.”

“Before we do anything” isn’t technically true. They shuffled the cards. But you’ll never be called on that. Shuffling the cards at the start doesn’t feel like part of the effect any more than setting the table feels like part of dinner.

It’s at this time you set-up your premise and you write your prediction. (Hopefully your premise is something more interesting than, “I’m going to predict what card you’ll end up with.”) I like to give them what I wrote and have them put it in their pocket.

Tell them to pick up the deck.

“I want you to deal the cards at random into two piles. One here.” You point to a place that’s in front of them, but just slightly off to the side.

“And one here.”

You point to a place that’s between you two on the table.

“Deal randomly, don’t just deal back and forth. Just place each card wherever feels right.”

Your friend will start dealing and one of two things will happen.

They deal the first card to themselves.

“Yeah, keep going through the whole deck. We’ll use whatever cards you keep for yourself. [Gesture to the pile in front of them.] And get rid of the rest.”

They deal the first card to the middle of the table.

“Yeah, keep going through the whole deck. We’ll only use the cards you put in play. [Gesture to the pile in the middle of the table.}

That’s the little verbal deception.

They’re either keeping cards for themselves. Or they're putting cards “in play” between the two of you. Both interpretations feel perfectly natural.

Slide the unneeded pile out of the way (or have them do it if it’s the one closest to them). Have them take the pile you’re working with and do the cross-cut force.

Recap for them.

“Remember the first thing we did was I wrote something down and you put that in your pocket and I haven’t gotten near it. Then you decided at random which cards you wanted to keep. [Or, “Then you decided at random which cards to put in play.”] At this point, what I wrote down may be completely wrong depending on what cards you kept for your self [Or, “Depending on what cards you chose to put in play.”] If it references any of these cards [turn over the unused pile] I was doomed before we even started.”

This process is related to a technique I wrote about in my second book and a chapter in the upcoming book as well. When you slow down a force and add more stages to it, then there are seemingly more failure points for you along the way. It’s not just, “How could he know I would cut to that card.” It’s also, “How could he know that card would even be in that pile to begin with.” We’re compounding the things you seemingly couldn’t know.

The key here is to not use any words to describe the piles at first. Don’t say, “Deal a pile in front of yourself and one in the middle of the table.” You don’t want them interpreting what these piles might me. “Ah, a pile in front of myself. That must mean it’s my pile.” Instead, you just point. “Deal a pile here and here.”

Once they’ve dealt just one card, you can immediately start using language that defines the piles.

If you want, you can also have them shuffle part way through their dealing.

Here we’re combining the deceptions of a marked deck, a subtle equivocal statement, and a cross-cut force. Piling these on top of each other makes it very difficult to unravel.

Carefree Update

Here are a couple of updates as I continue to refine my repertoire and my collection of magic items along the Carefree Philosophy. These ideas are specifically in regard to streamlining the physical magic tricks I purchase and keep. To me, there is a psychological weight involved with having 100 gimmicked decks at home. Or having 100 special props in a closet somewhere.

If you see yourself as a magic collector, this isn’t an issue for you. Having a large collection of props and magic gimmicks brings you happiness (I would hope). But I don’t think of myself as a collector.

I’m not someone who wants to invite you into my home to see my large display of antique swords.

I’m someone who wants to go out and stab people in the street.

You see the difference? I’m happy to have a sword collection as large as it needs to be to facilitate more stabbing. But beyond that, I’m not looking to collect more items.

This is true with me with magic as well. I have a small collection of magic books because I think you get new value from a good one each time you revisit it—and because I think a book collection has an aesthetic value I appreciate. But other than that, I want to keep the physical magic items I own as minimal as possible while still having what I need to provide a wide range of magical experiences for people.

Here are two types of magic props/gimmicks I’ve been eliminating from my collection. Perhaps this may inspire you in ways to trim some of the fat from the assemblage of magic in your home (if that’s your wish).

Non-Unique Unitaskers

I wasn’t exaggerating above. I had over 100 gimmicked decks in my collection.

Some of those decks have multiple uses. Like a Svengali Deck, or a Cheek to Cheek Deck which can be used for various types of effects.

Some of those decks were unitaskers, like the Haunted Deck. Uni, meaning one. One task. The decks only did one thing. The Haunted Deck cuts itself without you touching it. That’s the trick. You can present that in a number of different ways. But it still is really just used for that one thing.

One of my first steps in slimming down my collection was getting rid of all non-unique unitaskers. Eliminating down to one Haunted Deck. Eliminating down to one color-changing deck. Do I really nead Card-toon, Card-toon 2, and Fart-toon? Probably not.

Then I looked at the effects these decks can produce more broadly. I had eight or so decks where the cards would be blank and then print, or normal cards would become blank, or all the cards would become blank except the card the spectator named, or something like that. The effects weren’t necessarily identical, but they were close enough that I wouldn’t perform them for the same person. So again, I got rid of all but one.

Then finally, once I had gotten down to a single deck for each broad category of effect, I then asked myself if I could replicate the effect somewhat with a borrowed deck. If the answer was that I could get about 80% close to the effect with a borrowed deck, then I eliminated even this final gimmicked deck.

I can’t get 80% of the way to a specially made color changing deck with a borrowed deck.

But I feel I can get *)% of the way to a gimmicked ACAAN with a borrowed deck. So, for that reason, I didn’t hang onto any gimmicked ACAAN decks.

Using this criteria allowed me to cut down over 100 gimmicked decks to 26. And I’ll probably eliminate some of the remaining ones in the future.

“Everyday Object” Props

This has been a hard one for me to accept. But the moment you do a trick with something—even if it’s something that exists in the real world—it will likely be seen as a magic prop. Unless it’s completely native to the environment.

I’ve known this for some time, but I kind of want it not to be true.

I bought this trick years ago.

It’s a two-phase routine with hotel business cards. First you tell them which hotel they’re thinking of, then you predict which hotel they’ll select.

It’s based on similar routines with playing cards. But aren’t hotel business cards so much more interesting and memorable than playing cards?

And, as the ad says, the props are “totally realistic.”

The problem is, none of that matters. Especially in social magic, which is supposed to have a natural feeling.

If the cards were completely normal and 100% examinable, it still wouldn’t matter. The fact that you have them at all means they’re for a trick and therefore it’s going to feel like a trick.

I now ask myself when looking at a trick with props: “Does anyone carry this in real life?” Does anyone carry bottle caps? Or a stack of receipts. Or a page torn from a magazine?

These are ordinary objects, in a way. But it’s not ordinary to carry them around.

At worst, people will believe the objects are fake or gimmicked.

At best, they’ll see you as someone carrying around little magic props to show people tricks. It’s not the best look.

I actually find it much more natural and realistic to say:

“Here’s something bizarre I bought off the dark web. Watch this weird shit it can do,”

than it is to say:

“Here are five, normal gym membership cards.”

I understand the world of that first statement. A world where people find weird objects online, buy them, and carry them around to show people.

I don’t understand the world of the second statement. One where you’re supposedly carrying around regular objects that no one carries with them, and then acting like it’s normal to do something impossible with these objects no one carries with them.

Again, this is more of a social magic concern. If I was doing a formal show, then yes, maybe I would gather a bunch of hotel business cards to present something to you. But in a real world interaction, I would not.

Working through my collection of tricks with this mindset allowed me to clear out a bunch of effects.

If you have some minimalist tendencies and are looking to flush out some of the physical magic props, tricks, and gimmicks that you’ve accumulated over decades like I have, you may get some benefit out of putting your props through these filters.

Being Yourself

We don’t make enough about the fact that—after decades of performing magic specials at the pinnacle of the art form—this is how David Copperfield’s final magic special ended.

Feeling the pressure from David Blaine, Copperfield chose to end this special with a non-magic stunt, The Tornado of Fire.

This “stunt” involved—from what I can tell—standing relatively still for under ten seconds.

It’s short enough to gif.

If there was any potential danger to this stunt, it’s not obvious in that four minute segment. He couldn’t even fall into the fire if he wanted to, given that he was being held in place by the guys on opposite sides of him.

At the end of the sequence, David yells, “I’m hot” which doesn’t do much to sell the supposed peril he just faced. He sounds like me on any given August afternoon. Or when I open the oven to see how my stuffed-crust Digiornos pizza is coming along.

Artistically, it was a total failure too. A stunt that lasts 8 seconds where you can’t see the “star” the whole time? That’s what you’re going to end the special with?

The lesson here is: Be Yourself.

Instead of an earth-shattering orgasm, Copperfield’s last special ended with a wispy fart, because he was trying to do what Blaine was doing.

Being yourself is even more important when performing socially. There’s nothing more unsettling when someone starts being a “character” in a casual scenario.

Just be you.

Ah, yes, Andy. I see what you’re saying. Don’t put on some bizarre character when you’re dealing with your friends and family. Just be an amplified version of yourself.

No. Not even that. Not amplified. Just be you. Be your real personality. Let everything feel kind of normal except this bizarre thing you’re showing them.

But Andy, my everyday personality isn’t that interesting. I need to put on a bit of a persona to really make the experience entertaining.

Okay, then you’re focusing on the wrong thing. Work on your everyday personality so that it’s more interesting and engaging to people in general. Needing to play a role and show people tricks to get them to pay attention to you is no way to go through life.