Presentation vs Context: The Invisible Palm Aces

This is the final post I have planned on Presentation vs. Context. Although I’m sure the subject will come up in the future. Today I want to look at the exact same trick, presented with an identical premise, but in one case that premise is a Presentation and in the other it’s a Context.

Here is Paul Harris’ opening patter for the Invisible Palm trick:

“I’m going to show you how a professional gambler cheats at cards. Basically, it’s an advanced technique called PLAMING. That’s spelled P-L-A-M-I-N-G. It was invented by a famous gambler by the name of Bermuda Shwartz. This was the very same man who nicknamed his wife Houdini, because she had trouble escaping from his trunks, but that’s another story.

“Anyway, I”m going to demonstrate this wonderful technique he had for ‘plaming,’ and I’ll show you the very same way he showed me, by using these four Aces

“The first card starts in the standard V position, symbolic of the first letter of the word Venezuela…”

And on it goes. Most of Paul’s early work had these sort of silly, nonsensical, jokey, hokey presentations. It’s somewhat surprising, given that he would go on to be one of the people behind David Blaine and his virtually patter-less/Presentation-less performances. And the Bro Gilbert led performances on the True Astonishments box-set didn’t have any of this kind of weirdness. So I can only imagine there was some point where Paul was in the midst of this sort of performance where he stopped himself and said, “What the fuck am I talking about?”

If you watch his performance of this trick on The Magic Palace, you can see how this presentation goes over. You might say, “Well, he got a few laughs in there.” Okay, I guess, but what about the trick itself? This is a multi-phase effect that gets zero reaction from the audience until the polite applause at the end.

Now, let’s contrast that with Wayne Houchin’s performance of the same effect. It’s the same trick, same handling, and same premise that the cards are being absorbed into the performer’s hand. But where Paul delivers this as a loose Presentation in which to tell jokes, Wayne performs it as if he’s demonstrating a genuine technique.

Notice how each phase of the routine gets a strong reaction. It’s the same trick, but because he doesn’t need to steamroll on to the next joke, he can focus on each moment and let it breathe.

Presentations have jokes. Contexts do not. That doesn’t mean that both can’t be funny. But Contexts should not have scripted jokes (they should not feel like they have scripted anything).

With a context the humor should come from the premise, or from the natural interaction that comes from that premise.

With a Presentation you can add in jokes, like Paul does, but I don’t think it serves the magic particularly well. Since the humor isn’t inherent in the trick, you split the audience’s focus. “Who is this Bermuda Schwarz? What do you mean ‘V for Venezuela’? What is ‘plaming’ is that supposed to be funny somehow? Or is it important… is this something I need to remember?” You can watch the video of Paul Performing and see that there are some lines which no one has any clue how to react to. This can’t help but take focus off the power of the effect. And honestly, it feels kind of apologetic to me. Like you’re shucking and jiving to keep them entertained because you’re worried the trick itself isn’t interesting enough.

However, you may want to be the guy who tells jokey, whimsical stories with accompanying card tricks. Here’s a guy doing just that. He’s presenting that trick with Paul’s original patter. I’m not posting it to make fun of the guy. I just want to give you an outsider’s perspective of what this sort of thing looks like. Maybe you watch that and think, “I bet my friends would like that!” Well… god bless you. You’re a lucky man. I wish I had those sorts of friends. The minute I start saying, “This ace represents mud, blood, beer, and crud,” my friends would be like…

(I have friends all over the political spectrum.)

I’m not anti-humor, obviously. And I’m not anti-humor in magic. But if it’s not inherent in the premise, I think it pulls people out of the effect. Or, at the very least, it comes off as scripted. And scripted equals Presentation. And if you’re striving for an immersive Context, then Presentation is your enemy.

Introducing the Virtual Focus Group

Back when I was doing my old site, I would get my friends together and show them videos of magicians performing and then I’d write up their comments in a series of Zagat review style posts. These days I do a much more intense version of that sort of thing with the focus group testing I’ve been involved with in New York City.

For a while now, I’ve wanted to do something in between. As I mentioned in this post, this site is going to change going into the next season. The posts are going to be more casual, dumber, and shorter. The total amount of content will remain similar, but the stuff I feel has particular value will come in a monthly newsletter that will expand on the X-Comm newsletters that I’ve done for the past few years.

One of the features I’m planning on having in the new incarnation of the newsletter is a Virtual Focus Group (until I come up with a better name for it). Here’s how it will work. I’ll have a group of 20 laymen that we identify from short-term gig job sites. We’ll screen out anyone with knowledge/interest in magic. Once a month, we’ll send them a few short videos to watch and give their comments on. After three months they will be cycled out of the program (unless they prove to have some sort of incredible insight, then maybe I’ll keep them on in a different role). They’ll get $20/month for about a half an hour’s easy work. I think it’s a win-win for everyone.

“You’re going to pay $400 a month to have laypeople comment on magic videos?” Well, yes, I’m the one writing the check, but that money comes from the people who support the site (hence the reason it will be supporter-only content). I’m happy to reinvest that money and I think it’s the sort of thing supporters of this site are interested in too.

I love the unbiased, unvarnished responses we get in testing. What I think I’m better at than most magicians is maintaining a layperson’s sensibilities about things. But it’s impossible to be as good as an actual layperson. It’s one thing to listen to your audience, but they might be friends, or they might have paid good money to see you, that’s going to color their reaction. You can’t really trust reactions you see in demo videos. And listening to the feedback of other magicians is next to useless.

I’m still trying to figure out the details on how the Virtual Focus Group will work: what questions I will ask, how they’ll view the material, if I’ll do follow-ups, etc. But I ran a little test a couple days ago with five people I picked up off Craigslist. (No, not whores. They don’t even have that section on Craigslist anymore, sadly. Uhm.. I mean… good. It’s good they don’t have that section anymore.)

I sent them five demo videos of recently released effects. I had edited the videos so they just showed the trick, not any of the other promotional information. So even if they wanted to, it would be difficult for them to do further research on an effect.

I asked for three pieces of information about each effect:

• Describe the trick.

• Rate how impossible the trick seemed to you.

• What is your best explanation for how the trick was done?

For a few of the tricks, the response was about what I expected. But a couple received an interesting reaction.

The first comes from Penguin. It’s called Forgotten Princess. It’s a presentational variation on the Princess Card Trick where you—according to the ad copy—”Erase a memory, then bring it back.” So instead of the card just “vanishing” as in the original version, the conceit is that the spectator is forgetting the card. I didn’t really give it too much thought.

But then when I heard back from the respondents, in the area where I asked them to “describe the trick,” no one came back with anything related to “forgetting” or “memory.” A couple people said they weren’t clear on what the effect was. The remaining respondents said things like, “The magician knew the card she was thinking of.” And, “He made her card vanish and then come back.”

Now, I’m willing to concede that they might not have understood the trick because there is not a continuous performance of the trick in the demo. But I think there may be a bigger issue than that. As I watched the demo again I thought, “Well, I don’t think I really understand the trick either.”

From the primary spectator’s perspective what is supposed to be happening? Put yourself in their position. I show you five cards. You think of the King of Hearts. I pull one out and set it on the table. “I’m going to make you forget the card you chose.” I show you the remaining four cards, the King of Hearts isn’t in there. So you assume that’s the card I have removed. But then I put that card back in the fan and show you the cards and there still is no King of Hearts. Then I snap my fingers, re-spread the cards, and the King of Hearts is back. At what point along the way did you apparently “forget” anything?

You didn’t forget it when I showed you the four cards.

You didn’t forget it when I showed you the five cards. (If you had forgotten it, you wouldn’t be able to say if the card was there or not.)

You didn’t forget it when the card came back. The whole time you’re looking for the King of Hearts and that’s the card that came back. From your perspective the card is not there, then it is, but you knew what card you were looking for the whole time. So the idea that I “plucked the memory of that card from your head,” doesn’t really track.

Perhaps, this is intended as a dual reality trick. To the other observers it may seem like the person forgets the card? I’m not sure. It’s a close-up trick though, which is a fairly weak area for dual reality. And the laypeople I had watch the video didn’t “get” the memory thing regardless.

Conclusion: I’m not sure the Princess Card Trick works as a demonstration of a psychological illusion (any more than any vanish would—David Copperfield: “I made you forget the Statue of Liberty!”)

If you want to present the trick in a more psychological manner, I don’t know if “memory” is the right path to take. If I were doing it, I’d probably talk about “psychological scotomas” (blindspots). “Have you ever been searching all over for your keys, and you’re going crazy because you have somewhere you need to be, but you can’t find them anywhere? Then you look at the coffee table for the fifth time and there they are. They were right in front of your face but you couldn’t see them before. Your mind blocked them out. Well, there’s a way to induce this sort of sensation. Are you okay with that? I promise it’s temporary.”

So they think of a card. You do something (don’t just snap your fingers like a lazy all-powerful piece of shit). And when you spread the cards their thought-of card is gone. They see a blank face where the card should be (Or maybe you could have a card with a super blurry image on it.) Then you snap them out of it and their card is back. The idea being you’ve somehow generated a blindspot for them, making it so they can’t see the card they were thinking of.

I’m not sure if that’s any good. But I think there is a stronger logic to it than in the “memory” version.

The next trick that got an interesting response was Card Flex by Mario Tarasini and Ellusionist.

Watch it and ask yourself this question, “What is supposed to be going on here?” It’s something none of the five respondents could clearly answer.

I guess the answer is supposed to be, “The magician pushes a card through a bill. And while it’s through the bill, the card separates in two pieces and then is restored.”

That’s some straight gobbledygook right there. There’s a somewhat glaring issue with this trick. When you do a penetration effect (like card through bill) you want to make sure the audience believes these are two solid objects. You know what really takes away from that impression? When you then go and split one of the objects in two.

Of course, if you could hand out the card at the end, then maybe you could forgive the clusterfucky nature of the two tricks jammed together. But you can’t. So your best case is for someone to say, “That was sort of neat looking. I’m curious how the card is tricked up to allow you to do it.” That’s the best case scenario. (All five respondents said “trick card” or something along those lines for their guess as to the method.)

Conclusion: If you want to melt a card through a bill, use Matthew Johnson’s Melt 2.0. It looks great and everything is examinable.

If you want to do a close-up Zig-Zag, consider Blade by Nicholas Lawrence. I like the business card variation. Again, it’s examinable at the end.

If you want to melt a card through a bill and in the middle of that do a zig-zag trick, ask yourself what would possibly compel you to want to do that.

Dustings of Woofle #17

I found this screenshot on my desktop and it made me laugh so goddamn hard. I need to explain it first though.

A couple weeks ago I was writing about the Digital Force Bag app, and how corny it is to walk around with a list of random celebrities in your notes app. And as I was writing the post I thought, Well, what would be a good rationale for having a list of celebrities in my notes app? Then I thought it might be funny to have a list called “Celebrities I Fucked.” No hot young starlets, but just like:

• Billy Mays

• Ed Lover

• The Travelocity Roaming Gnome

• Zachery Ty Bryan

• Joy Behar

And so on.

And you’d wax nostalgic about your former lovers, but mention that one held a very special place in your heart because you had a child together.

You’d lay a photo on the table face-down. They’d name a number, you’d show the celebrity, and the picture would be one of those “what would your child look like” face morphs between you and the celebrity.

I could get some mileage out of something like that.

So I was going to explain this idea in the post and then I was going to show an example of such a photo. I wanted to choose a couple of people readers of this site would recognize, so I chose Joshua Jay and Elvis Presley.

So I went to this site and inserted pictures of Elvis and Josh, and… oh my god. The picture they gave me in return was so hilariously stupid that I decided to excise that part of the post because it would have derailed the whole thing. But I took a screenshot and just stumbled on it again and it made me laugh even harder.

So here it is….

The love child of Elvis Presley and Joshua Jay…

I’m going to put some space here to generate some tension as you scroll down…

here it comes…

hold on, let me quote from the site first…

“Have you tried something like this in the past, but have not been convinced by the results? BabyMaker is not just another face morphing program that stops transformation in the middle and calls it a baby.

Instead, BabyMaker is based on the newest facial recognition technologies. The program carefully analyzes the two faces, detects their facial features, and applies sophisticated mathematical transformations to these facial features to show a totally new face.”

okay, here it comes. A “sophisticated mathematical transformation” “based on the newest facial recognition technologies” showing what the child of Joshua Jay and Elvis Presley would look like…

Here is the lovely young lad…

---

S.G. wrote in with some interesting additions to the Transporter presentation in the previous post…

The idea with The Transporter is great, especially with Halloween parties coming up, where I and a friend will go as Rick and Morty. An energy transporting wristband just sounds like an invention coming directly from Rick.

Here are some ideas I came up with:

• I will buy «electrode cream» (used to increase electrical connection between the Body and EEG machines) and apply it below the wristband. The idea being that there has to be an electrical connection between both hands. It would make the context more interesting and it’s a buy-in for the spectator.

• In the coin-phase of the trick I will tell them that I will not make one, but two coins at the same time travel from one hand to the other. Then I will close my fists, wait some seconds and suddenly smoke will come out of my fist. I will frantically ask the spectator to break the connection between my hands. When I open my hands, there is only one coin in my hand left (using a shell) and in the other hand there is a black mark (some ash I applied with my thumb). The idea being, that two coins was too much for the Transporter and one coin got pulverized. Then I will say that the Technology is still not ready but that we can try smaller amounts of energy and go into the second phase of the trick.

• Another idea I am considering is building a crazy sci-fi looking device where both wristbands are plugged into. Then I would screw in a small «light bulb» and it will start glowing when both wristbands are connected, increasing in brightness, culminating in a flash and then dying down. Each phase of the trick I would screw in a new light bulb, the idea being that it is used up during the Transportation.

---

In case there was any doubt about what Jibrizy’s cell phone wallpaper is—it is, in fact, a picture of Jibrizy.

Presentation vs Context: The Transporter

Think of Coins Across. The coins go from one hand to the other.

If you just say, “I’m going to make the coins go from one hand to another,” you are presenting the trick without Presentation and without Context. There is no other layer beyond the impossibility.

Depending on the trick and depending on what your goal is, it sometimes makes sense to present a trick in this manner—just a pure impossibility.

---

What might a Presentation for Coins Across look like? I wouldn’t be surprised to see a magician saying something along these lines:

“Have you seen Star Trek? Do you know the transporter? Well, in this trick, my hands are like the transporters and these three coins represent the Star Trek crew. I close my hands, and Spock goes across. I know what you’re thinking… Highly illogical, indeed!”

And it would continue on like that with symbolism and bad jokes, which are the two hallmarks of capital-P, Presentations.

A Presentation is something that is not essential to the effect, but it helps tie everything together. It relates the trick to something else people understand and can give some meaning to something that would otherwise seem arbitrary.

---

What about a Context for Coins Across? That’s something I’ve been playing around with for some time now.

What I wanted to do was take the Presentation given above and just tweak it a little. Instead of the magic being a representative story of transportation, I wanted it to be in the Context of a demonstration of Transporter-like technology.

“Have you seen Star Trek? Do you know the transporter? Well, this is kind of like that. Imagine that technology in the super early stages, and you’ll have some idea what this is all about.”

Then I would introduce a couple of robotic looking wristbands. Something that clamped shut around the wrist, lit up, and made a whirring noise. I would slap on these two wristbands and then do coins across as an example of the type of thing you could do with them.

I searched for something that looked like what I had in my imagination. I couldn’t really find anything. Although these 7RON watches were something I considered.

But before I invested $300 bucks in this, I decided to use a more modest looking prop. And so I bought a couple of $8 anti-static bracelets.

They don’t look super sophisticated or technical. But that’s okay because I just wanted to play around with the idea. Most people have no clue what these are. If I ever ran into someone that did and she said, “Hey, that’s just an anti-static bracelet.” I’d say, “Yeah, that’s what I thought too. It does look quite similar.”

I’ve been having a surprisingly fun time with these and I’ll tell you about a few different phases I’ve been doing with them. But first I want to repeat something that I will hopefully not have to mention too many more times. The goal of a Context isn’t to be believed. The goal is to turn the trick from a story they’re watching to one they’re taking part in. A Presentation is 2D. A Context is 3D.

Here’s what I do. I have a quarter in finger palm and each wrist has one of these wristbands on it. I ask for a quarter and reach out my empty hand to receive it and at the same time I put the other quarter into Goshman pinch. So my hands are out flat with one quarter showing. I ask the person to connect the alligator clips from each wristband. As they do I switch so the visible coin is now in pinch and vice-versa. So when they look back the coin is in the opposite hand. About 50% of the time this is a big moment. The other 50% of the time they don’t notice because they weren’t really paying attention yet. Either way I’m now going to send the quarter back to the other hand. So this is either the first or second transposition they’ve witnessed depending on if they noticed the first one.

I could do more coin phases here, but as much as possible I want this to not feel like just a coin trick that’s done with these wristbands on. It’s not a coin trick, it’s a transportation trick.

So now I take off the wristbands and put them on my spectator and have her hold out her hands. “It takes a few months to master being able to transport physical objects. A coin is about as big as I can go. One woman I met could send a mouse. But I think she also ended up with a lot of dead mice before she got to that point.

“We’ll try to send something that’s only a very small amount of energy.” I take my friend’s hand and drag my finger across her palm very lightly, so it gives her a tickling sensation. I keep it up for 15 seconds or so (or until she orgasms, whichever comes first). I stop and step back. I tell her the sensation should transport and she should be able to feel it in her other palm soon. My hands are on opposite sides of her “receiving” hand, as if to focus her attention and energy on that hand. After a moment she feels a tickle along that palm. [If not obvious, this is done via a loop stretched between my hands.]

Now, a coin going from one hand to another—in the hands of someone you know who has an interest in magic—will probably come off as a magic trick regardless of the Context. But now we have a tickling sensation going from one hand to another. That’s much harder for them to say, “Oh, I know exactly what this experience is all about.”

They’re a little wobbly. At this point, I go in for the kill.

I take one of the wristbands off them and put it on me. So now I’m connected to the spectator. She closes her hand into a fist. I draw an X on my palm with a Sharpie. I close my hand. When I open it the X has vanished. When she opens her hand, the X has appeared on her palm. She flips her shit. [This is Double Cross.]

I’m sure you can imagine how strong that all is together and you can also probably see how I would never have gotten to that combination of effects and methods had I been focusing on a story (Presentation) to go along with Coins Across, rather than a situation (Context) in which to put the trick.

Other ideas:

• You could do a full Coins Across routine first, and then take off your jacket or hoodie and show the wires running from one wrist to another and then veer off from their to explain how you “really” did it, and follow it up with the other phases.

• You could clean up the extra coin situation by tangling up the cord a little and then when you open your hands the coin has duplicated rather than transposed. I kind of like the idea, but it feels somehow jokey to me, which is not what I’m going for here. I may try it in the future and see if it has any merit.

• I haven’t played around with the handling for this just yet but I had the idea for a final phase where I have the wristbands back on me. They give me a coin. I close my hands and have them unhook the alligator clips when I say, “Now.” They do and when I open my hands there is half a coin in each hand.

Mailbag #15

I’m thinking of starting a magic blog or something similar and I want to identify an angle to approach the site from. Did you start this site to write about amateur magic or was that just the direction things went as it progressed? —HP

I don’t think I ever thought, “I’m going to write a site about amateur magic.” It just turned out to be a through line in a lot of what I was writing about, because I’m not a professional performer. And most of the advice that I thought was bad was advice was obviously designed for professional magicians, but people just gave it as if it was general magic advice. “Script out your performances.” “Put your tricks together into strong routines.” “Make sure you clearly define your abilities.” “Don’t let them touch your props.” All of this stuff that—I guess—makes sense for someone performing magic professionally, makes you look like a real weirdo when you’re hanging out with someone and showing them a “casual trick.”

On the discussion forums, people were always asking about things like reset time, “can you do it surrounded,” and pocket management. It seemed weird that there was no one talking about things like, “What’s the best way to use your couch cushions to switch stuff when you’re hanging out with someone.” To my mind, it would seem like that would be something a lot more people could benefit from

Given the concerns of most people on the Magic Cafe, it seemed like everyone was either doing tablehopping, weddings, or trade-show magic. I found that strange. In my entire life I don’t think I’ve ever walked into a restaurant or a wedding and seen a magician performing there. And trade shows? I don’t even really understand that market. I get the sense that companies used to set aside a bunch of money for whores to woo potential clients and that has fallen out of fashion, so they’re like, “Uhm…. I guess we could get a magician?”

(When I see a trade-show magician lecture, I always find it highly suspect. It’s always stuff like, “And you can write the product’s name on the Ambitious Card to show that their product always rises to the top!” Like…the hell? Does that sort of thing really have any impact? If I ran a corporation, and I sent someone to a trade-show to scope out some new vacuums for my hotel chain, and he came back and said, “I was going to get the new Eurekas, because they gave us the best offer. But then the guy at the Hoover display made a big red sponge ‘dustball’ go from his hand to my hand, and he showed me a card trick that clearly demonstrated that Hoover ‘Makes dirt disappear like magic,’ so I went with them for multi-million dollar contract.” I’d be like, “It’s been nice working with you, but you’re fucking fired. Beat it.”)

So it always surprised me how little was written about performing from the amateur/social perspective. I didn’t really set out to write about it, I just wanted to write from experience, not theory. And all my experience was as an amateur. And writing about it made we want to try out new things and that caused me to perform more which brought on more ideas and on and on it went.

I think it’s probably helpful to have a POV when you’re going to start a blog or a youtube channel or something like that. But content trumps POV. If you have 100 ideas for posts, but no centralizing theme, just start putting out the content and your voice will emerge.

---

Okay, so what’s the best way to use your couch to switch objects?

The item to be switched in should be behind the throw pillow on your side. The item to be switched out gets shoved down between the cushion and the couch.

Example

You have a loose blue deck behind the pillow. In your hands you have about 45 red cards with 7 blue cards on top. That deck is placed in a blue case. There is a Sharpie on the end-table on the spectator’s side.

You pull the deck out of the case and spread the top few blue cards. “Usually a magician will have you select one like this, so you don’t really know what you’re getting. It’s kind of sketchy.”

Turn the deck face-up and spread the cards wide across the cushion between you, leaving the top cards (the blue ones) somewhat bunched up. Have your spectator slide out any card towards themselves. Unbeknownst to them, the card will have a red black.

Scoop up the rest of the spread and take it in your outside hand (the one closest to the arm of the couch). Turn to the end-table near you. The deck is hidden from view by your body. Turn to your friend and say, “Hmm. Maybe it’s on your table. Is there a marker over there?” As they look and grab it, you jam your deck in the couch cushion and pull out the other deck behind the pillow.

They sign their card.

Now you have a freely-selected card with a different colored back and an examinable deck. Do something interesting with that set of circumstances.

---

Hey Andy I really like the way you wrote up this version of Paul Harris’ Son of Stunner but there was something in It that seemed illogical. After you say you switched all the cards to face the same way, you then say you switched every card for one from another deck. The illogical step is that you switch their orientation, and then just get new cards when in fact getting new cards would be reason enough that they are all switched back.

Do you think that it would be better to combine this into one step. “While time was frozen I got a new deck, see they aren’t mixed up like the one we used, here I can prove it look at the backs” (something along those lines).

Or, would it be better to first freeze time, switch the orientation, and then freeze time a second time and switch the cards. I'm curious If this extra pause (freezing time for a second time) would add to or diminish the final effect.

Or, does this illogical step not really matter at all? —KO

You’re right. I never thought of it before and I’ve performed that quite a bit. I don’t think it matters that much, given that it’s such an absurd explanation to begin with, and it’s not the sort of thing most audiences would pick up on. But it’s always better to strive for a more logical impossibility.

I think freezing time twice is the way to go. Actually… maybe freeze it three times. That would be a good structure for the trick:

Freeze time.

“I knew what card you selected because I froze time and looked. You don’t believe me? Geez. Okay.”

You freeze time again.

“Okay, this time, while time was frozen, I reset the deck back to normal from the mixed up condition it was in. Proof positive I can really stop time. Wow… you’re still not believing this? Hmmm… I’m sure you think your skepticism is a strength but actually your inability to accept something I’ve pretty much proven beyond a shadow of a doubt suggests a profound weakness in your character. Okay. Whatever. I’ll try again.”

Freeze time. Then reveal the rainbow deck.

I like that. Thanks for pointing out the illogicality.

Dustings Of Woofle #16

Next week is Fall Break here at the Jerx. No new posts. Regular posting resumes on the 21st.

Also, on the 21st (or at some point before then) supporters should expect the Fall edition of the X-Comm Newsletter to show up in their email boxes. I’m not exactly sure when it will be sent out, but definitely by that Monday. Just sit and wait for it to arrive, Great-Pumpkin-style.

(“Great-Pumpkin-style” is also my preferred sexual position.)

---

Is there any magic company more pathetic than Conjuring Arts? Always hopping on the newest trends to turn a quick buck. If some 14-year-old drops a nickel, you can be sure Conjuring Arts will be chasing after it.

It’s almost sad. “What are kids talking about these days? …. Duhhh…. well… yeah… that’s what our next magic product was totally going to be about anyway!” Suuuurrrreeee.

How sad was that instagram post of Bill Kalush doing the Floss Dance to Despacito? Despacito? More like just plain desperate.

Whenever I get an email from them I think, “Gee, let’s see what book they just rushed to press in order to capitalize on whatever flavor-of-the-month trend is happening at the moment”

Did you all get that email about their latest money-grab?

“Hey all! It’s ya boy, Billy K. here to spill the tea about our new release. I know y’all be thirsty AF for the next book that’s going to blow up your Insta and your TikToks with them likes. Well it’s finally arrived! Yasssss, queen! You know you want it, and now it’s here: Volker Huber’s Bibliography of German Language Literature on Magic Arts Published Prior to 1945.”

---

Here’s something for you to play around with while this site is on Fall Break. It comes from reader, Kyle Everitt. It’s not the type of thing you would associate with this site, but it’s still something I find pretty interesting.

This routine is a liar/truth-teller type of routine. The spectator thinks of one of four objects. You ask them some questions and they either lie or tell the truth. In the end, you know which object they were thinking of. That sounds fairly standard, I know, but it differs from the routines of this nature that I’m familiar with, because the spectator can lie or tell the truth at whim. They don’t have to be consistent throughout all of the questions. Yet you can still tell them the object they’re thinking of and the questions they lied about.

I’m posting this here not because I think you’re likely to go out and perform it tomorrow, but because it’s a fascinating thing to try and wrap your head around. And maybe some of you will have some thoughts on ways to push the idea even further. I won’t, myself, because I really don’t even know how it works. But if you’re not dumb like I am, then you may have some further insight.

To play around with this without another person, grab a deck of cards (to act as a randomizer) and print out the pdf below. Shuffle the deck. Use the suit of the first card you turn over to select one of the objects for the “spectator” to think of. Then use red/black to decide whether the person lied or told the truth to each question.

Some quick thoughts of my own. (These won’t make a ton of sense until you familiarize yourself with the document.)

1. Kyle has chosen the four objects so the spectator can just think of them (they don’t need to actually have the objects, or for you to have them look at a specific picture or something like that). I think that’s an admirable goal, but I also think it may—at times—make the questioning a little less intuitively easy to answer. For example, if they think of the “antique chair” then they should answer “yes” when you ask, “Is it made of wood.” But what if the antique chair they think of is not made of wood? I would probably describe it as a “small, wooden chair from a child’s desk at an old schoolhouse,” or something, so they know the chair they’re meant to think of is wooden and liftable.

If this was something I’d do regularly, it would be with a photograph of four people, or four Guess Who cards, so the questions could be very straightforward. “Do they wear glasses?” Etc. This is similar to the first version Kyle sent me a couple months ago.

2. I would also inform the person that every question relates to multiple objects, so even if you knew they were lying or telling the truth for a specific question, it still wouldn’t tell you exactly what object they’re thinking of. This might not be obvious to them.

3. In the attached document he refers to this as an “anagram.” It’s not, but I don’t know what it’s called either. It’s a logic-based liar-truth-teller routine.

Anyway, if you have a mind for this sort of thing, check it out here. You may look at the document and think, “F-this. This looks like homework.” In which case, it’s probably not your scene. But if you like these sorts of concepts, I think you’ll find this really interesting. In actual performance, it’s pretty straightforward, for the spectator. Behind the scenes, there’s a shit-ton going on.

Thanks to Kyle for sending it my way and allowing me to share it with you.

---

Castration—surgical or chemical—is an expensive proposition. If you’re looking for an alternate way to maintain your young son’s virginity for as long as possible, might I recommend supporting Ellusionist’s newest Kickstarter and supplying him with LED, Light-up “Playing Cards” for Cardistry? Armed with these, you can be certain no one will see him as a potential sexual partner for at least a decade.

Is this a new low in stupidity? I don’t know. Their Fiddle Stick definitely set the standard in the “dumb garbage” department. But I think this might be worse. Sure, the Fiddle Stick was stupid. But at least it could serve as a complicated dildo with which to fuck yourself on those lonely Friday nights when you were—yet again—not invited to any high school parties. The clickety-clack racket of it sliding in and out of your rectum hopefully drowning out the memory of their mocking laughter when you proudly revealed your Fiddle Stick at the lunch table.

Now, just to be clear, the Fireflies aren’t playing cards. They’re four blocks, each about the size of a quarter of a deck, with which you can perform some cardistry-style maneuvers. Blockistry? I don’t know what you’d call it. But certainly not “cardistry,” because they aren’t playing cards.

As they write in their ad about cardistry:

The barrier to entry is very high. So we developed Fireflies to make it far, far easier.

Fireflies open the door to an easier & visually stunning branch of Cardistry, electric artistry. An obsession requiring you to control only 4 illuminated packets. 

With a deck of playing cards, you've got 52 individual cards to worry about. 

Fireflies reduce your learning curve by allowing you to focus on only 4 blocks at a time. 

There seems to be some confusion here. The only thing that makes cardistry interesting is the fact that it’s difficult—that you’re artfully manipulating 52 separate objects that could fall apart at your fingertips at any moment. Consolidating the cards down to four blocks is moronic.

Yes, similar blocks have been used in the past… for practice. That’s where they belong. There’s nothing cool about carrying around specially made blocks with LED lights on them. It’s like buying spinner rims for training wheels.

I guess my main question is, why stop at four? Why not just whittle it down to one block that you toss in the air. “Wheeee! Wheee! I’m a Cardist!”

---

See you in ten days. Enjoy Autumn before it’s gone.

Magic with Unusual Objects

It’s almost universally accepted that magic with “everyday objects” is stronger than magic with some strange prop. I would say, in general, I agree with that pretty much 100%.

But there are still a lot of obvious props that allow you to do something very interesting or really visual, and often the trick itself is really easy. So these tricks can be very alluring.

A typical approach when dealing with a trick that uses some unusual object is to try and normalize the object. “It’s not a magic prop… it’s a sleeve to protect expensive baseball cards!” (WOW gimmick.) “It isn’t a magic prop…it’s a little pill box.” (Okito box)

That makes sense, but it seldom works. “A sleeve to protect baseball cards…. that obscures the image on the card? Who wants that?” “A brass pill box with a lid that just rests on top? What purpose would that serve? Surely we have better options than me walking around with a bunch of loose pills and the top and bottom of a pill box floating around in my purse.” Even if they do buy it, then you’re still carrying around rather arbitrary items to do a trick with.

Below are some different approaches to dealing with unusual objects/obvious props. They’re along the same lines as The Engagement Ceremony style of presentation, where we deal with tricks with a lot of process by putting the focus on the process. Here we deal with a weird object by putting more focus on the object itself.

Here are some examples…

Obvious Prop: Tenyo Trick

Standard method: You pull out the trick and perform it. It’s pretty neat. Your spectator thinks, “Oh, that’s pretty neat. I guess there’s a trick you can buy that does that.”

Alternate presentation:

This is an idea that comes from friend-of-the-site, Toby Halbrooks. Toby is a Hollywood hotshot whose lowest Tomatometer score is still certified Fresh. Toby understands the value of a good story. (I’m hoping to get him to produce an erotic thriller I’m working on about a lawyer with three testicles (fingers-crossed).)

He also understands the value of minor adventures and he suggested to me a presentation for a Tenyo trick—inspired by the Yento presentation—that mixed a little story and a little adventure. From his email…

When you're making plans to eat with a friend and the inevitable "where should we go?" questions turns into "I don't care," you can jump into this. Once you've settled on a place, you jump in the car and start heading towards wherever you decided. Shortly into the drive, you get a text: "Package arrived." Let them see this, overtly or accidentally. Ask if they wouldn't mind changing plans... it'll take a little longer but will be worth it.

For me, we'd drive 40 minutes north to the Korean area of town. I imagine there is some version of this in every town. There is an Asian grocery store, mini-mall, and a bunch of great restaurants.

You can either pull the person into the grocery store with you to go receive the package or ask them to wait in the car. You'd have to set up with somebody there to actually give you the package, which shouldn't be too difficult - obviously, it's nothing illegal. For me there is also a little mini-mall with little booths next door to this that sells a wide variety of things. It would not a be a huge stretch that you'd pick something up here.

With plans officially changed, you pick one of the local restaurants, something they haven't tried, which should be nice and novel on its own. Proceed with the story of what this thing is and let the good times roll.

So now the story you tell is that you got the hook-up on some black market magic tricks out of Asia.

Like Yento, I think it’s a good idea if the trick is examinable and you act as if you don’t have anything to do with the way the trick functions. “It looks like a kid’s toy, but that’s actually part of the way they smuggle it out of the country. By making it look so innocent. It’s really premium shit. I have no clue how it works.”

Obvious Prop: Okito Box

Standard method: You pull out the little brass box and do your coin trick. The spectator thinks, “That was pretty cool. I guess there’s something special about that little brass box.” They’re wrong though. The box is examinable and ungimmicked. But because it’s unusual and introduced as part of a trick, it feels more like a “prop” than a normal brass box.

Alternate Presentation:

You’re at the flea market with your wife. At some point you two go your separate ways. When you reunite, she asks you what you bought. You show her a little circular brass box. “I’ve been practicing those coin tricks and I keep misplacing the coins or knocking them off my desk. I thought this would be a good place to keep them together. And it was like 50 cents, so I figured why not. “

“Also I got a hat from Wrestlemania 7.”

You get home and set the box on your desk where it remains for a while

Six weeks later you say to you wife, “Remember that little box I got at the flea market to hold my coins? It’s the craziest thing… I’ve got to show you….”

Here we’re putting all the focus on the prop, but long before it’s used as part of a trick. So when something strange starts happening with it, it’s not something strange happening with “the brass magic prop box he just brought out,” but with the box you got at the flea market.

This is a very disarming technique. For example, if you wheeled out a production cabinet, and then did a trick with it, people would assume this was some special magic prop.

Of course they would, because that’s the context in which they were introduced to it. However if you supposedly bought it at a garage sale and just had a lamp resting on it in your living room for a year and then you did a trick with it, people wouldn’t say, “He did a trick with a special magic cabinet.” They’d say, “He did a trick with the end table.”

Obvious Prop: WOW Gimmick

Standard method: You pull your gimmicked plastic sleeve and make the card visually change. The audience thinks, “Holy shit! That’s crazy. Let me see that plastic sleeve. Oh… I can’t? Okay, I see what the deal is. That was cool though.”

Alternate Presentation:

Go to the dollar store or a thrift store and buy a cheap ceramic statuette of some sort. Then mail it to yourself. Or just put it in a mailing box, print out a fake a mailing label, and leave it near your front door.

Go with your spectator to your house and notice the box on your porch. “Sweet. It came.” You pick up the box and bring it inside. Open it up and remove the figurine and shake it to your ear, but you don’t hear much.

Go in the other room and grab a small towel and a hammer. Already in the towel—unbeknownst to the spectator—is an ungimmicked WOW sleeve. You place the figurine in the towel and smash it with a hammer. Then you unfold the towel, pick through the pieces, and find the WOW sleeve (as if it was entombed in the figurine).

“Huh,” you say, looking it over. “It doesn’t look like much. I hope I didn’t get ripped off.”

You tell your friend about this guy you met who’s able to get some contraband magic tricks shipped to you. They put them in the statues so they’re not seized at the ports.

“He’s never ripped me off before. Does this look like anything to you?” You give your friend the sleeve to examine as much as he wants.

You leave the room to make some phone calls and make sure you got what you were supposed to.

You come back, “Okay, I think I figured it out.” You switch the real WOW trick in at some point and take it from there.

You see, if you take out the WOW gimmick and say, “this is a luggage tag” or “this is a protective case for baseball cards,” you are saying something that is both obviously false and totally boring. But if you say, “I’m not quite sure what this thing is. But I know it has to be smuggled into the country, and if you’re caught with it, it’s a 20,000 dollar fine.” That too is probably not true, but at least it’s kind of interesting.

Not only that, but it’s completely congruent for the spectator. They look at the gimmick and think, “Hmmm… that’s probably some weird magic thing.” And your attitude is, “Yes it is. Weirder than you can imagine.”