Until July...

It’s the end of the June posting cycle and thus time to say goodbye for a little bit.

---

It’s also the summer solstice. Always a good day to show someone some magic because, of course, it’s the day when the earth absorbs the most electromagnetic radiation from the sun and you can harness that in order to… well, do whatever you want, really.

---

Things are gradually opening up around me. Friends are making plans to get together and more performing opportunities are coming back day after day. And people seem desperate for interaction. it’s a good time to have something to show people. Don’t miss it.

It’s also a good opportunity to shift your style of performing. If you’ve felt stuck in the rut of doing boring ass card tricks for people, now is a good opportunity to say, “No, actually I didn’t learn many new card tricks during quarantine. I sort of took a break from that. Instead I was looking into some other stuff. It’s kind of magic related but a little… weirder.”

---

I’m shifting heavily into the writing of book number four at the moment. The last couple of months involved a lot of prepping and outlining, but the real writing starts over the summer.

Book number four! Holy shit. Someone wrote me a little while ago and did the math and estimated that between the site, the books, the magazine, and the newsletters, I have written the equivalent of 24 full-length books since the start of this site. I mean, I get that the writing one does for a blog is different than the writing one does for a book. But still. That’s a lot of writing about magic. Especially given the fact that I hate writing, and I only barely like magic.

---

See you in July.

I’ll leave you with what I consider a summer music classic. It’s Summertime Clothes by Animal Collective. It’s a rare song that romanticizes being hot and uncomfortable on a summer night. I’m not sure I’d love it as much as I do if it wasn’t so nostalgic for me. It’s about ditching your bed on a hot night to meet up with someone.

I’ve always been a big late-night frolicker. Starting as an 11 or 12 year-old, climbing out of my bedroom window to meet up with my friends—a bunch of sneaky little shadows, prowling the suburbs. Then as a teenager, sneaking out to meet up with my girlfriend for a moonlight walk or driveway make-out session. And up until now, as a grown-ass man, I still like getting together with people for late-night conversations, meals, or unsanctioned swims in my apartment complex’s pool.

So this song that really speaks to me. Great song. Great lyrics.

Second Helpings #1

Second Helpings is a new feature on the site that I introduced in this post. The idea is that people who have a book, ebook, or multi-item video release can offer up what they consider to be the second best item in their release to be posted here. They get the word out about their product and you get something for free. It’s a win/win.

Theoretically, if you enjoy what you get for free, then you will be inspired to purchase their release because, at the very least, there should be one thing even better, and hopefully a number of other things of a similar quality.

This series is specifically not intended to be for reviews of books and ebooks. As I said in the earlier post, writing a book review isn’t fun. it’s homework. But this series will give you what you need to generate your own review. You have a sample of the book. And you know the relative strength of that sample compared to other stuff in the book. You can do the math from there for yourself.

In this initial installment, we have three offerings.

We start with something from Allan Kronzek’s book Artful Deceptions. The effect is called True Romance, and here is how it’s described in the book…

This is a human-centric reimagining of Karl Fulves’ “Gemini Twins” from More Self-Working Card Tricks (1984). In all versions with which I am familiar, the spectators deal through the deck in order to find the mates of playing cards, or to match a prediction, or to find the four Aces. The effect has no emotional resonance because it’s about the cards, not the people. In this staging, a couple is invited to face each other, to look into each other’s eyes and to discover the precise moment when synchronicity, or intuition, or some deep, soulful connection allows them to miraculously discover each other’s selected cards. The ensuing level of astonishment is as deep as it is gratifying.

I haven’t used Allan’s exact handling, but I’ve done something similar with Gemini Twins and it can be very strong.

Here is the effect.

And here you can find more information about Allan’s book of “impromptu card mysteries” and see some of the great reviews it has received. (Although it should be noted, a couple of things in the book aren’t impromptu, so I’m not sure why he refers to the book that way. What other lies is he telling with his books? Does he even have grandkids or is he an involuntary celibate?)

---

Next up we have something from someone with the terrible pseudonym of Mere Practice. I tried to talk him out of it, but that’s what he’s going with.

Here, let me find him a better pseudonym. I’ll use this site that creates random usernames. Whatever it shits out can’t be worse than Mere Practice.

Let’s see…

Oh, fuck yes! Pumpkins Summer? Bus Sponge? Pinwheel Slack? Those are all outstanding. Cookies Alphonse! “Good afternoon. I’m Cookies. Cookies Alphonse.” That would make a great name for a detective who doesn’t play by the rules in a 70s blaxploitation flick. “Aw shit, man! We gotta get out of here. Cookie Alphonse is coming!”

Annyyywayyysss…“Mere” is offering a one-handed turnover pass that he cleverly calls, One Handed Turnover Pass.

This is a pass that you would do with one hand while gesturing. The closest thing I do to a pass is “step outside the room and cut the deck,” so I have no clue if this is any good or not, but I feel it looks pretty good.

It’s a little hard to tell in that gif because the bottom card changes from the four of diamonds to the four of hearts, but there was a pass done there.

If it’s your sort of thing, you can check it out here.

Mere Practice’s book Casual (Looking) Magic can be found on Amazon.

It has taken the top spot in my rankings of “most depressing magic book covers.” The feeling it elicits isn’t one of magic and mystery so much as one of suicidal ennui.

Coincidentally enough, the previous top spot was held by the gentleman at the top of today’s post, Allen Kronzek (although we really have Dover Publishing to blame). As mentioned in this post.

---

And finally we have an effect called Lucky You from Michal Kociolek’s book Plots and Methods. Here is the effect as described in the book:

A chosen card is found at a position established by randomly chosen numbers.

Ooohhh… what a scintillating description!

Actually it’s pretty strong effect. I have my own presentation that I’ve been working on for this, but that probably won’t see the light of day for a while now so check out the original version here.

The full book can be purchased here.

---

Thanks to Allan, Mere, and Michal for sharing their work.

If you’d like to offer up something from your book or download in a future installment of Second Helpings, just send me an email.

Mailbag #25

I have this idea of combining two tricks, one you don't really like and one I'm not sure how you feel about.

BRANDED by Tim Trono + Kolossal Killer by Kenton Knepper

so the idea is quite simple, if you have a custom made BRANDED gimmick that has: the suits on one side (like the original) and the number 3 - 6 and Q on the other side, you can brand 16 different cards. The 6 and 9 being the same basic shape.

and adding the off by one you can cover the 48 cards, like KK. you get this, not sure why I'm writing it down.

The "off by one" can be basically placed anywhere. My initial idea was to write it in the same hand in which you "brand" the fingers, and just keep the hand closed if you don't need it and open it as a "tada" moment if you do need it.

Another idea was to make the Branded gimmick easy to release from the lighter and place a sticker or just sharpie in "off by one " on the lighter. You could take the lighter gimmick out, brand the fingers, hand the lighter- gimmick to the spectator and they hold the lighter while you burn your fingers.

The whole point was just an idea to carry only 1 object for this without doing the pocket index like third degree burn.

I'm aware this is more clever than strong. But just wanted to share with you the idea. —DM

Yes, it’s a clever idea. But my issue with it is—while the tricks work together methodologically—I don’t think they make a cohesive performance piece. The blister trick (and its variations) is a very organic/elemental trick, but the “off by one” part of KK is a sort of “cerebral” revelation. “My prediction was off… but I predicted my prediction would be off.” The two tricks don’t really mesh well, in that respect.

It would sort of be like doing a stigmata effect where you make your hands bleed, and then asking the spectator if they know what word you’re thinking of and when they say, “No,” you open up your hand and show the blood has written out “NO.” Yes, you could do it, but I don’t think those things really go together.

---

You mentioned having dry hands in the past. What’s your current solution to deal with this? —ER

I have a feeling there is no one solution that works for everyone, I’m sure it has something to do with your own personal chemistry. So take that into consideration. What I’m currently using is O’Keeffes Working Hands cream. It gives me a few minutes of better grip/tackiness. And that’s generally all I need for my purposes (intermediate sleight-of-hand and/or jacking off).

---

One difference between performing magicians and amateur/social magicians is that the former usually have a stage personality. And if you are The One And Only El Magico, I think it is perfectly fine to take the "look how powerful I am" approach. But if you are uncle Harry, the guy from the Spanish evening class or just a friend, your approach is much more natural.

Do you think you have some sort of "stage personality" when doing social magic? If you do, I bet there is some sort of smear effect between this personality and your everyday just-Andy-and.nothing-magical personality. But maybe you don't change personality at all when doing magic. —AS

My goal is to have no performing “persona.” Occasionally I will play dumb during a magic trick for laughs, but occasionally I play dumb in real life for laughs, so that’s still congruent with who I am.

I don’t want my spectators to recognize a shift in personality when I go into a trick. I want them to recognize it’s a trick (maybe not immediately, but at some point) due to the subject matter and the strange thing that is happening. But I want them to feel like they’re going through this experience with me, the person they know and care for, not with Andy the Magnificent. That grounds the effect, even if it’s completely fantastical.

The feeling I’m striving for is that they’re the same person, and I’m the same person, but we’ve drifted into a different reality where weird shit happens.

This is sort of the underlying theme of the next book.

Dustings of Woofle #25

People are still sending me emails with questions about zoom magic shows. I really don’t have more to say about this. Zoom magic is/was a temporary evil. Not the new normal. At this point, it’s not forward thinking to be concentrating on that.

If you’re a professional magician and you’re putting your eggs in the zoom basket, you’re probably wasting your time (in the long run). The primary appeal of magic is seeing the impossible live and in person. If your zoom magic shows are as powerful as your in-person shows, then your in-person shows weren’t very good. This is not exclusive to magic. If you’re a prostitute and watching you stroke a banana over skype is as satisfying as getting off with you in real life, you’re a terrible prostitute.

I have a friend of a friend who started working on his zoom show when this all started. A couple months later I spoke with our mutual friend to ask how this guy’s zoom shows were going and I found out he abandoned the idea completely. The price-per-show had plummeted because now instead of competing against other magicians in the area, he was competing against everyone with a webcam all over the world.

Instead he focused on two new types of shows. The first was a magic show that he would perform outside, to people indoors, through the window—while still taking steps to make it feel very interactive. The second was a drive-up magic show where families could drive to his house, pull part-way into his garage and experience a magic show from their car. With people desperate for something to do—and him not working his normal day-job at the time—he was booked solid with multiple shows a day, and ended up making more money in six weeks than he had from performing the previous year.

I’m not saying you should adopt those ideas. I’m saying if I were a pro, I would be focused on how to bring live, in-person magic to people in the current environment rather than focused on ways of doing my act over zoom.

---

This chick is amazing. When she lets go of the end and it comes back to her without missing a beat? Whoa. Real magic, no tricks.

View this post on Instagram

Jumping like a maniac into the weekend😜💃🏼 Shuffle Movements 😎 . . . . . #jumprope #runningfervor #motivation #fitness #workout #jump #crossfit #dance #tiktok #maniac #instagood #xelite #redbull #fit #cardio #gym #exercise #shuffle #peopleareawesome #fit #motivation #cardio #dothething #fun #music #breakdance #circusaroundtheworld #health #joy #expert #athlete #choreography #movement

A post shared by Tori Boggs WorldJumpRopeChamp (@snorib) on May 22, 2020 at 12:09pm PDT

---

So, Hanson Chien put out an update to Tenyo’s Flash Dice. It’s called Sonic Dice. It’s essentially Flash Dice but done with a clear container with a removable opaque sleeve.

Some may say this is just a minor change, and not worth the $50 price tag. I disagree. I think it’s a significant improvement and really builds the effect from phase to phase.

I was all ready to put my order in, and then I saw this.

That’s right. This clear plastic box, which should be the most innocent, nondescript piece of magic apparatus you can think of is emblazoned with his fucking name!

It’s such a profoundly dopey decision.

Maybe there’s some rationale behind it. Maybe you need to have some sort of company information on the actual product to help protect against knockoffs or something. I have no clue. But I know it could have been done in a smarter way than this. If it said “HC Gaming Supplies,” then that would probably be ignored by a spectator.

There had to be some other option besides putting the actual goddamn magician’s name on a box that was specifically created to seem innocent and free of guile. It’s not just that the creator’s name is on the box, but because it’s a clear box, that’s the only thing there is to see on it. And don’t say, “If you’re a good enough magician, they won’t want to look at the box.” That’s what sad magicians tell themselves when their spectators are totally disinterested in what they’ve just seen. “They didn’t want to look at the deck, because they really believe I’m a magician!” The truth is, when you perform this, you’ve made the dice and the box the focus of their attention. They need to be certain those things are normal before they can get to the feeling that you did something truly impossible. You might think because it’s clear they don’t need to handle it to know there’s nothing suspicious about it, but that’s not necessarily the case. If you don’t let them handle it they might assume there’s some clever magician thing going on that they just can’t quite fathom, but if they could get a look at the box, then they’d understand.

Even if you just assume spectators will have no interest in the box and assume you are a wizard, there’s still no justification for putting the name on the box.

Perhaps there was some kind of mix-up. Maybe they were making a list of shit they absolutely shouldn’t do with their new product. And at the top of the list was, “By no means should we put the name of the magician releasing the trick on the box.” And somehow the wires got crossed and accidentally it got put on there. That must be what happened.

I’d literally rather it said, “Trick Magic Dice Box” on it. That would seem so blatantly silly that people would disregard it. But no, instead they decided to give them the best search term to use in order to find the product online.

I like Hanson’s work as a creator, but the choice to put his name on the box (and to a lesser extent, the choice to put his logo on the case the box goes in) is the choice of someone who markets magic to magicians but doesn’t perform much for real people. If he puts out version 2 without that shit, I’ll be first in line.

Audience-centric Revisited

Do you have tips on turning magician-centric presentations into audience-centric ones? I feel stuck in that regard. —SC

Magician-centric presentations can cause the audience not to fully engage because it’s very easy to come off needy or ego driven. When an audience goes to see David Copperfield, they’re asking for a magician-centric experience. But when you offer to show someone something they didn’t ask for, it can be off-putting if that thing you’re showing them feels like it’s meant to shine the spotlight on you. You may say that that’s not your goal. Your goal is just to entertain them. But you’re doing so in a way that puts the focus on you. So even if this is truly an altruistic gift of entertainment, it’s easy for the audience to construe it as needy or self-serving.

It would be like if I showed you a documentary about what an awesome guy I am. Even if it’s a truly interesting documentary, it seems kind of desperate.

Which is why I’ve pushed the idea of audience-centric presentations.

But some people got hung up on that term. They figured if “magician-centric” magic was a demonstration of the magician’s power, then audience-centric magic was a demonstration of the audience’s power. So they assumed I was promoting spectator as magician/mentalist effects, or something like that. But that’s not what I was getting at.

Instead, think of it like this: Magician-centric = Ego-centric. Audience-centric = Story-centric.

And I don’t mean “story” like it’s often used in bizarre magic, where there is a story that is illustrated with a magic trick.

I mean what is the story of this interaction

If the story is, “Here is a demonstration of my power,” then you have a magician-centric presentation that may come off as a need for attention and validation.

If the story is pretty much anything else, then it’s much more likely to be seen as something you’re showing them to entertain them. And therefore it will feel like something you’re doing for them, rather than for yourself.

For example, if you do a five-phase 10 Card Poker Deal routine and your presentation is simply, “I can make you lose despite you making all the choices,” that’s a straightforward magician-centric presentation.

However, if you show people the same trick, but explain that you have this lucky rabbit’s foot that allows whoever holds it to win the game, the presentation becomes audience-centric. Not because it’s about the audience, but because you’re not making it about you. By not making the presentation about your skill, it’s more likely to feel like it’s something you’re doing for their benefit, not yours. Magician-centric and audience-centric, aren’t terms I use to describe who the trick is about. They’re terms I use to describe for whose benefit it seems the trick is being performed.

Even though the audience knows—at least in their rational minds—that there is no such thing as a lucky rabbit’s foot and this is just a framework for your trick, the fact that you’re not seeking credit with your presentation will make it feel that wasn’t your intention in performing for them. This will allow them to see it more as a piece of entertainment to be enjoyed than some sad show-off thing. This is the magician stereotype that you should try to avoid.

Magician-centric material isn’t inherently bad. But if you’re an amateur, and you’re performing for the same group of people more or less, then over time a bunch of performances that amount to, “Look what I can do,” “Look what I can do,” “Look what I can do,” are likely to wear thin.

But if you mix up your presentations, including some that shift the focus off yourself, then your magic is less likely to be seen as a celebration of yourself, which makes it much more sustainable in the long term.

Mind Unmapping

Last month I posted an idea from Colin Robinson in regards to a way to justify the placement of a word for the Acidus Novus peek.

In the same email he gave me an idea for a justification for the placement of a word in a center tear. Now, this placement doesn’t really need much justification. In a center tear, the word is, after all, in the center of the paper. You can just put a line on the paper and that’s usually more than enough of a cue for the spectator in regards to where to write and how big to write. What I appreciated about Colin’s idea was not so much how it justified the placement, but how it justified the tearing for a center tear.

First I’ll give you his basic idea and the modifications I’ve used when I perform it.

Colin’s email:

Mind Mapping

I talk to the spectator about the weird places conversations can go and the moments when you think "How did we get here?" and try to trace your thought process back to the origin point. On the back of a business card, I create a web diagram, and then have the spectator think of a word in the center and then let their mind wander to fill in all the attached bubbles in relation to that word. They fold up the card, and then I rip it up into pieces and put it in their hand. They pick out a piece and see a word from one of the outer bubbles on it, trace the thought back in their mind, then I reveal the word that was at the center of their mind map. 

Okay, so first, I don’t use business cards. I just use a piece of paper. Who am I, Magnús Ver Magnússon? I’m not full of steroids. I can’t be ripping through multiple layers of business card like it’s nothing. I’m only half kidding here. While it doesn’t take great strength to rip through a business card that’s folded in quarters and then doubled over on itself, it does take a bit more concentrated energy than I want to exhibit at that point in the trick.

I use a standard center tear. I don’t use one of those center tears where you get the peek as you rip up the paper. That’s precisely the wrong moment to get the peek (when you clearly have the word in your hand). I’ve written about this before. I won’t relitigate that here.

So I give the person a piece of paper with something like this drawn on it.

It doesn’t have to be that exact layout, that’s just what I use.

Then I ask them to think of anything at all. It works best if they think of a noun.

While I’m turned away completely I ask them to write that word in the center circle.

I then have them fill in the other bubbles with the most unrelated words they can think of.

The first couple of times I had them do it with related words, as in a traditional mind-map. But, perhaps unsurprisingly, this was a bit too believable. If you’re given a related word, then it’s perfectly conceivable you might be able to make the jump from one word to the other. Instead of mind mapping, this is mind unmapping. And I ask them to put down six random words that are as unrelated as possible to the target word.

When they’re done I ask them to fold the paper in quarters, set it on the table, and cup their hands.

I briefly turn back, just long enough to pick up the piece of paper, then turn my head away again and tear it up over their hands, stealing away the center piece in the process.

“I want you to shake up the pieces and remove just one piece at random. The piece should have some writing on it, but it shouldn’t have any of the original word you were thinking of on it. If you pick one of those pieces, put it back and choose another one. When you’ve got a piece that works, set it on the table and put the other pieces out of sight. If the piece you choose has more than one word on it, just tear it some more so only part of one word is showing.”

During this process I am turned around and opening the stolen piece to see what their word is.

By telling them what they should do if they pull out a piece of their original word, I’m reinforcing the idea that those pieces are still in their hands.

The piece of paper they give me may only have a portion of a word on it. If I can’t make out what the full word was, then I just ask them. Then it’s just a matter of working backwards from that word (apparently) to find out their original word. This is the fun part. It’s actually pretty easy. Just look for differences between the two objects and then suggest that those are the differences you would expect to find.

It will be clearer with an example.

The last time I did this, their original word was “mouse.” And the word they pulled from their hand was “bathtub.”

So I just did some improv based on the differences between those things. Differences they don’t know I know at this point.

It sounded something like this…

“Okay… bathtub. Well, a bathtub is big and heavy so the thing you’re thinking of is probably light. A bathtub is also an inorganic object, so you’re probably thinking of something alive. Maybe… a small houseplant or something? Hmmm… what else. Well, you associate a bathtub with a bath. Which is something many people find enjoyable and relaxing. So you must be thinking of something that isn’t calming. Something maybe anxiety inducing. So something small, alive, and anxiety inducing. Maybe… like… a rat or a mouse?”

In actuality, it wasn’t that straightforward, but that’s the general gist of how it went.

It doesn’t really matter if you stumble at this point in the presentation. Ultimately you’ll be able to name the word they were thinking of, so you have a way to end it even if you sounded like a babbling idiot leading up to that point.

The purpose I give for this exercise is that often people try and prevent mind reading (or psychological thought discernment—if that’s your style) by intentionally focusing on unrelated information. So, instead of fighting that, this is an exercise to practice working backwards from the unrelated information to the original thought.

Thanks again to Colin Robinson for sharing his ideas and allowing me to pass them along.

Sunday Flashback

While reorganizing and moving some stuff out of storage recently, I came across a bunch of old school work. Not, like, math homework—but stories, poems, and movies that I had made for school. I figured it might be mildly amusing to see some of the earlier exhibitions of the stupidity that would one day blossom on this site.

I found a couple dozen of these poems that I had written for an English class when I was 12 or 13. The style of poetry I was drawn to I would describe as “Shel Silverstein dealing with the late stage repercussions of a brain eating parasite.” As with all the finest poetry, it will really pull on your heartstrings and make you think.

It’s called…

A Woeful Ditty of Love and Sadness

There once was a boy named Jim Paladin
And everyone made fun of him
Not because he was short or fat or dim
But because he had no nose

He couldn’t smell the exhaust from passing cars
Or get a whiff of liquor when walking near bars
Or enjoy the aroma of fine cuban cigars
Because Jim had no nose

And everyone would stop and stare
And laugh and point and scream and glare
And say to themselves, “My, isn’t that rare.”
All because Jim had no nose

One day Jim had an evil feeling in his heart
And he bent over (ripping his pants apart)
And then he let out the most enormous fart
Which people smelled with their noses

And the fart-laden air filled the lungs of his foes
And they collapsed dead to the ground, so the story goes
And then their bodies began to decompose
Which didn’t bother Jim because he had no nose