Until November...

I’ll start today with a couple of sites you might want to look at for presentational embellishments. When it comes to interweaving your magic with the real world, a legit website can be a good starting point. Then you slowly transition from this real site/real concept into something unbelievable.

Now, to be clear, my goal isn’t to “fool” people by making them think we’re talking about something real, and then have it turn into a trick. It’s actually kind of the opposite of that. I want them to know a trick is coming but have it start in a way that feels very grounded and real.

Imagine I said to you, “I’m going to tell you a bedtime story.” If I begin with, “Once upon a time, an elf was riding a dragon to the Chocolate City in the clouds,” that starts you off in fantasyland. But if I begin with, “So this guy at work, Kurt, keeps taking extra long lunch breaks and is expecting me to pick up the slack,” and somehow that turns into a fantasy story, that—to me—is more interesting.

Similarly, if I say, “Hey, I have a magic trick I want to show you,” you might be expecting the Chinese Linking Rings or something. But if I then say, “So, I saw this interesting website…,” you will realize it’s going to be a different sort of experience.

What I’ve noticed when performing magic is that it seems to be more fun for people to have the real world slowly fade away into the Twilight Zone rather than to start in the Twilight Zone.

That’s a long preamble, let’s get to the sites…

First, there’s this article, sent to me by Kevin M., which discusses “gravity anomalies” and how gravity varies by location. If you do some further research, you’ll see it’s actually a hyper-localized phenomenon. In fact, there’s a “hot spot” about a mile and a half from where you are now. About 50 yards off the road by the tree in that field. Couldn’t you make a little field trip to show someone something strange at that gravitational anomaly?

Next we have this site from Stephen P., which is designed to help identify “Superforecasters” (people who are very good at predicting what’s going to happen in the world). Maybe since signing up for this site, you’re just learning you have a talent for predicting things. Or maybe they kicked you off because they thought you were somehow cheating the system because you were so accurate. Or maybe (as I would likely say) you’ve been doing the challenges and just doing okay… but you met this one guy through the site who is incredible. “He sent me an email of this game I should play with the next person who visits me, and he has predicted the outcome. And I’m so glad you’re here tonight because I’ve been waiting to try this out….”

---

Matt from the UK sent along this progressive anagram for a trick he’s planning that includes every celebrity who has died in 2020 (last names). It’s more than 120 people. It’s probably more of a curiosity than something you’ll be able to use. It’s done in the transgressive style which prioritizes speed over hits. But even so, it still requires seven or eight guesses to get the name. So it might be hard justifying all those guesses. (Matt suggests doing it over video chat—so you have access to the crib—and using a Ouija board to offer up the letters.) It’s definitely doable, it will take some finessing.

Although it would be great to have someone think of any celebrity who died in 2020, get 7 “NOs” in a row, and then be like, “I’m just fucking with you. You’re thinking of former bass player for the band UFO, Pete Way.”

Of course if you wanted to use this past today, then whenever someone new dies, you’d need to add another letter guess or re-write the entire anagram. (For example, this was made before Eddie Van Halen died, so you’d want to use him as an example to disqualify him.)

I think you’d probably have to give people access to a list of celebrities that died in 2020. Otherwise there’s probably only 3 or 4 they could think of off the top of their head, so figuring it out wouldn’t seem that difficult.

Regardless of the practicality of this, I think it’s pretty cool to see the extent of the anagram, and I’m glad he’s letting me share it here. If you end up doing anything with it, let me know. (He sets up his chart a little differently than the ones I’ve shown in the past, but you’ll figure it out.)

---

Kyle O. sent me this video clip from the show Dave. The maid of honor speech at 1:27 into the video really does sound like it could have been pulled from something I wrote…

“I realized something about magic. […] The magic behind magic isn’t the illusion. It’s that someone cared enough to create the illusion for you.”

I realize I’m taking this out of context, but that sentiment is something I’ve touched on in one or two of my books and at least somewhat in this post.

Our magic should be a chance to make someone else feel special (that we put in the effort to create this moment for them). But usually we’re so focused on ourselves and how good the trick makes us look, that we lose that benefit completely.

---

Hey all, have a Happy Halloween. Stay spooky. See you in November.

Monday Mailbag #32

I discovered your site back in March. I started reading from the beginning, but being a father of five I couldn’t “binge” the site so I set aside 30 minutes in the morning before everyone woke up to read through it. I went at a leisurely pace and took notes and finally today [Oct 14th] I am caught up. That’s almost 200 days of reading half an hour a day.

[…]

I just want to know what your “best case scenario” for the site was before all this started. It doesn’t seem like you intended on writing it for years. Did you have a plan for how it would go when you began writing? What was the ultimate reward?—BH

First off, that’s insane. I feel weird that anyone has spent that much time reading this site. And then, extrapolating from that, how much time I’ve spent writing it makes me feel doubly weird.

No one is more surprised than me that this site is still here and readership is still growing. I had planned to write the site for a few months while I had scheduled some downtime between work projects. But then it just got momentum and people got behind it and it just made sense to keep it going.

My best case scenario? I’m not sure I started the site with any best case scenario in mind. I don’t think I ever planned to be “rewarded” in any way. Although when the readership for the site started going up I did think some magic companies would come calling and I do remember having two thoughts related to that at the time.

First thought: “One of these magic companies—or maybe a few of them—are going to give me access to all their downloads and/or lectures. “ That seemed like a no-brainer to me. It would cost the company essentially nothing, and by being exposed to these thing, there was a good chance I’d end up mentioning something on the site. It was free advertising. But nothing close to that ever happened. Maybe they thought there was just as likely a chance I would trash their products as praise them. I don’t know. (This was before I realized getting free stuff was a burden, more so than a gift.)

Second thought: “I bet some magic company is going to hire me to write for their site or write their marketing emails.” You know when a trick is released and you get five identical boring emails from five different magic companies? I thought someone would approach me to come up with something different. But that may have been naive of me to think. They would probably be concerned that I was going to say “cunt” or “go choke on a dog’s cock” or something when describing a trick. Like I’m some retarded animal who can’t adjust his writing for the audience.

So, early on, those were the ways I thought I might be “rewarded” for the time I was putting into the site. I’m glad neither of those things happened though, or the site would not be what it is.

---

In your blog posts you mentioned that if you want to leave people a strong experience for long time you will make sure there is no "Easy Answer"...So they don’t just create a solution and dismiss the magic experience.

But in this post you mentioned the following....it makes me a little confused because in my understanding these concepts go against each other..

Now, here's the thing. That final effect only fooled me for a matter of moments. I experienced the effect, was blown away by it, but almost immediately knew what must have occurred. (Or, at least, I have a workable theory of what occurred.) And I don't think that's just true of me as a magician. I think any intelligent audience member would say, "Ah, when we were looking here, this must have happened over here." (I'm being coy to preserve the moment for those who haven't seen it yet.)

But that moment was still powerful to me. Even though it didn't "fool" me in the long run, it was still so surprising and visually and conceptually interesting that it's one of my favorite pieces of magic I've ever seen.

—LC

Yeah, I can see how that would seem contradictory, but I’m really talking about two different things.

For the sake of the magic trick and the feeling of mystery, you can’t have any Easy Answers.

For the sake of a memorable experience, then I would value thrilling an audience over fooling them.

If my options are between thrilling them, but not fooling them long-term or fooling them but not thrilling them. I’m going to go with the former.

What do you think spectators would rather experience:

A) looking out the window and seeing what looks like a real live dinosaur (even if they realize it’s only an illusion seconds later)

B) a boring card trick that fools them

It’s going to be option A 100% of the time.

But the two concepts aren’t at odds with each other. Ideally you want both. Methodologically you want something that has no Easy Answers. Presentationally you want something that thrills the audience. Not every trick we do will live up to those standards, but that’s the goal.

---

I mentioned [in a previous email] that I figured out Duplicity from Bannon's own performance video. I may or may not ever perform it, but should I? I have figured out other tricks, some I'll never do (e.g., D'Angelo's Touch) and others I'd really like to do (e.g., Shuffle Bored, which I figured out watching Lennart Green perform it).

Here's what I'm leaning toward. I think it would be wrong for me to reveal a trick I've figured out to someone else. I also personally feel it would be wrong to perform it in a paid gig (which is not and most likely never will be an issue for me). Where I'm a little stuck is performing a trick just for fun for a friend or whatever. It feels to me like if I was able to figure it out from a demo or performance, it's probably ok to perform it in that kind of context, provided I don't reveal it.

On the other hand, of course, Bannon for example certainly deserves compensation for developing such awesome stuff. I have his books and videos on my list of stuff to get hold of when I'm able. But in the meantime, what would be your sense of whether it's ok to perform, say, Duplicity, AK-47, Collusion, Prophet Motive III, etc., all of which I've figure out (at least I think I have!) from watching them? —LT

My rule is simple: If I’m going to perform something, I pay for it.

There’s a practical reason for this; the fact that you’re going to end up picking up on nuances of the trick that you wouldn’t otherwise.

There’s an ethical reason for this; that fact that, as you said, people deserve compensation for the time and effort they put into coming up with this stuff.

But my rationale is more of a cosmic one: I want to keep the scales balanced. I don’t want to be a taker.

This is not a rule I’ve implemented for the sake of others. I do it for myself. It keeps me happy.

If there is something I like, something I use, or something I get value from in some way, I don’t ever try and get around paying the price for that thing. (It may not always be a monetary price.) I know it sounds corny, but I’m convinced this practice plays a part in me being pretty damn content and happy. And while I’m just one data point, it’s also true that 100% of the most miserable people I know are all takers.

2020 Horror Movie Month Halfway Report

In October I watch a horror movie every night. Usually I watch ones I’ve never seen before, with the exception of one older franchise that I revisit (this year it’s A Nightmare On Elm Street). Below is my list of movies from the first half of the month, along with a brief note on each. These aren’t “reviews” because my taste in movies is not that nuanced. I like pretty much everything in the horror/thriller genre. Well, “like” might be too strong of a word. But I have no problem sitting through most horror movies. The ones in bold below are the ones that I would watch again in the future. I’ll also include on what streaming service they’re currently available. Otherwise they’re all likely available on Amazon to rent. A good site to find where a movie is streaming is justwatch.com.

A ⭐️ means it was one of my favorites of the month so far.

A 💀 means I thought there was some legitimately scary moments (beyond just a jump scare or something like that)

Oct. 1 - The Invisible Man (2020) - I realize I don’t know the story of the original Invisible Man flick. Does he drink a potion or some shit like that? Well, whatever, this new version was pretty solid. (HBOMax)

Oct. 2 - A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984) - This actually holds up surprisingly well. I was sort of surprised by that.

Oct. 3 - Blood Rage (1983) - If you schlocky 80s horror, you’ll enjoy this. That’s not really my scene. Filmed in 1983 and released in 1987, I have a feeling it probably felt dated even upon its release. (AmazonPrime)

⭐️ Oct. 4 - Better Watch Out (2016) - This has been one of my favorites this month. Not “scary” really, but I had no idea where it was going, so that’s why I found it so enjoyable. If you’re going to watch it, don’t read anything about it. Just fire it up and watch. (AmazonPrime)

⭐️ 💀 Oct. 5 - The Hole In the Ground (2019) - Very good movie in the “creepy kid” genre. (Amazon Prime)

⭐️ Oct. 6 - Triangle (2009) - More existentially scary than spooky scary. This is a mind-bending movie. The kind of one you go to youtube after to fully unravel.

Oct. 7 - Afflicted (2013) - A well done found-footage style horror movie with some scary moments.

Oct. 8 - Hubie Halloween (2020) - Adam Sandler’s new Netflix movie. It’s about what you’d expect it to be. (Netflix)

Oct. 9 - A Nightmare On Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge (1985) - A big drop-off from the first film. It doesn’t even have the same mythology. Freddy—a monster who attacks you in dreams—is now crashing pool parties in the real world. The movie is probably more interesting sociologically. It was a mainstream horror release in the 80s but it has been described as “gloriously gay.”

Oct. 10 - Stake Land (2010) - Like a season of the Walking Dead condensed into a movie (and not about zombies). Not bad. (AmazonPrime)

💀 Oct. 11 - As Above So Below (2014) - This got pretty bad reviews, so I didn’t watch it when it was originally released. Watching it now, I enjoyed it. It’s a found-footage style movie that mostly takes place underground in the Catacombs of Paris. I found that setting very effective for a horror movie. (Netflix)

💀 Oct. 12 - The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016) - Good. Scary setting. Lots of creepy visuals. (Netflix)

Oct. 13 - Happy Death Day 2U (2019) - Not as good as the first movie in the series. But this gets points for combining so many genres in one film. It’s as much or more a comedy film and a sci-fi film as it is a horror film. There’s even some family drama elements to it. My eyes legitimately got teary at one point. I think this is the only movie on the list to do that.

Oct. 14 - The Loved Ones (2009) - A well done torture porn type of film. If you had asked me 10 years ago, I probably would have really liked this. But I guess I’m mellowing or something because it was almost too much for me in some spots. (AmazonPrime)

Oct. 15 - Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) - I remember really enjoying the first one. This one didn’t quite do it for me. Some funny moments, but overall just a weaker version of the original.

Oct. 16 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) - This gets the series back on track. Some fun visuals and Freddy starts calling people “bitch.”

⭐️ 💀 Oct. 17 - Haunt (2019) - This was just a really well executed horror movie. It doesn’t really try to do anything too crazy. The set-up (young adults go to an “extreme haunted house “ attraction out in the middle of nowhere) is something that could have been done in the 80s. But it’s really effective and I found the “monsters” to be pretty unsettling. If you think of yourself as a horror movie fan, then I think you’ll like this one.

The Juxe: Blackness of the Night

Today I want to share a a video of Bill Callahan and Bonnie Prince Billy covering the Cat Stevens song, “Blackness of the Night.” It’s a real pretty version featuring some haunting man-on-man harmonies. And the video was directed by our friend, and Jerx supporter, Toby H. Check it out…

The Copperfield Twitter Collection

For the past few days I’ve been posting as David Copperfield on Twitter. (Well, a very enthusiastic, emoji-loving version of David Copperfield, at least.) I’ll be deleting the posts soon, since they won’t make sense when I change my twitter photo and name back. But I’ve collected them here for posterity.

Anti-Suggestion

Do you have any suggestion-based tricks in your 100-trick Repertoire? —MG

Not really. I don’t think suggestion-based tricks really work in the type of situations in which I perform. I’m not totally convinced they work all that well in any performing situation.

In the early days of focus-group testing we did less live performing and more testing where we would show people recorded performances of magicians and get their feedback based on those performances. The lowest scores I ever saw were connected to magicians doing suggestion based routines.

When performed for a group or large audience, it’s generally just one person who experiences the suggestion. So the audience perceives the effect through that one person. But that person’s reaction is almost never what you’d expect it to be if the effect was really happening. Instead, their reaction always has to be teased out of them. So you’re putting the full audience’s experience in the hands of someone who is reacting nowhere near the way they should if events were truly unfolding as the magician/mentalist is implying. It’s just not a very structurally sound way to build an effect.

I saw a mentalist once tell a woman to look at the palm of her hand and he said something along the lines of, “And you’ll notice the lines on your hand are starting to move and twist around.” And she looked at her palm and was like, “Uhm… okay, yeah.” And I feel like he thought that was a success because he got her to say yes. But it didn’t really ring true to the audience.

It should have gone like this:

“Look at the palm of your hand. You’ll notice the lines—”

“Holy fuck, what’s happening to me!!! The goddamn lines on my palm are moving!! Someone call a doctor!”

And in one-on-one performances suggestion-based effects have other issues.

Think of a coin bend. You’re holding a coin in your hand and I say, “And if you concentrate you’ll really feel it getting warmer. Warmer and warmer and now it’s getting softer and starting to bend. You can feel that, yes?” You may end up agreeing to that or not, but even if you do, on some level, you’re going to realize that I talked you into that response. Unless it’s something you really want to believe for yourself, you are going to sense the suggestion.

If I tell you you’re going to see or feel something and then you have to try to see or feel that thing, that’s not strong.

In my experience, there is nothing that takes people’s enjoyment down more than feeling like they had to “play along” with the magician. If people like being fooled, then they want to be fooled with their defenses up. If they don’t like being fooled, they’re not going to enjoy being coerced into pretending to be fooled either.

The Power of Anti-Suggestion

While I don’t use suggestion as a sole method for any effects I do, I think you can use suggestion to get people to feel and sense certain imagined stimuli, but you don’t do it by using coercion. You do it by planting a seed and then allowing them to water it. It’s something I think of as “anti-suggestion.”

For example, if the spectator has a coin they don’t know is bent held in their fist, I might say…

“I want you to imagine yourself sending energy from your heart, into your arm, and down into your hand. You might be able to feel a warm sensation radiating down your arm as you do this.”

Notice, I’m not saying they will feel it. I’m just saying they might feel it. And the truth is, if you concentrate on a part of your body, and imagine it felling warmer, it usually will. But that’s not the anti-suggestion.

I’ll then say, “Continue to feel the energy move down your arm and into the coin in your fist. Some people, if they’re particularly tuned in and sensitive, will feel the coin start getting warm, and the metal starting to soften a little. You’re probably not going to feel that, given this is your first time. But don’t worry, that doesn’t mean it’s not working.”

Anti-suggestion is telling people something they’re not going to feel/see/experience.

So now if you do get a hint of this thing I told you that you probably won’t feel, it becomes something you’re going to magnify in your mind without any pressure from me.

Here’s another example. Sometimes I’ll do a simple nailwriting trick where I try and send some initials to my spectator. I sort of guide them through the mental preparation required to receive the thought from me. And then I say something like, “When you get good at this, and you’ve practiced it, you’ll close your eyes and sort of see a sea of letters, far away in blue. And after some time thinking over those letters, two will rush up to the forefront of your mind’s eye and they will glow big and bright in a fiery red. That’s probably not going to happen now. That’s just an idea of what the process might look like someday.”

Then I have them concentrate and give me two letters and about half of the time they’ll say something like, “It was just like you described it. A mass of blue letters and then two bright red letters just shot to the front.”

And I’m like, “Wow… really?” As if I’m impressed. As if I didn’t just tell them exactly how to envision thinking of these letters.

My favorite way to use Anti-Suggestion is to say, “[Something] is probably not going to happen.” And then do something to make sure it happens. I call this Enhanced Anti-Suggestion.

Here are the three varietals of suggestion in action. Let’s say the spectator has a word written on a business card under their hand. I say, “I’m going to extend the aura from my hands, slide it under your hand, and use my aura to feel the word on the business card.” As my hands approach their hand:

Traditional Suggestion: “You’re going to feel my aura as it surrounds your hand. Yes? You can feel it? Like a little tingle, yes? And you can feel it slide under your hand as well. Be honest. Does it feel more like a tickle or a tingle?”

Anti-Suggestion: “Okay, you’re probably not going to feel this. Unless you have a very sensitive aura yourself. Then you might be able to feel our auras interact as my hands are close to yours. It will feel like a tingle. But it doesn’t matter if you don’t feel it. I’m just going to slide my aura near yours…”

Enhanced Anti-Suggestion: Verbally I would say the same thing as I do in anti-suggestion, but I would also use a loop or other form of invisible thread to make them feel the thing I told them they weren’t going to feel.

That’s the Enhanced Anti-Suggestion technique. It’s very strong. Spectator’s don’t expect something to happen that’s stranger than what the magician says is likely to happen.

Both regular and enhanced Anti-Suggestion are ways to make the spectator push the suggestion rather than have you try and pull it out of them. I think this is psychologically a much stronger technique. And it can work regardless of what the spectator’s disposition is towards you. If they like you and want you to succeed, then they will amplify any sensation you hint at. And if they’re fighting you, then the worst that can happen is that they will be forced to agree with you that they didn’t feel what you told them they’d be unlikely to feel. But they may actually fight you enough to persuade themselves into feeling what you said they weren’t going to feel.

And the best part about this is that it’s almost impossible to screw up Anti-Suggestion whereas it’s seemingly really easy to screw up traditional suggestion. I say that because—while I’m sure there are some performers who use suggestion masterfully—most often it comes off as something between bullying and “I’m just going to make this as awkward as possible until you go ahead and agree with what I’m suggesting so we can move the hell on with our lives.”

Five Lies and a Truth

Our buddy, Marc Kerstein has released the second “season” of his app, Amalgam. This app doesn’t do one specific thing, it collects different apps that Marc has created under one umbrella. You can buy apps individually or in 4-app groups.

I haven’t had much time to experiment with the new apps in this release, but the one I’ve played around with the most is called Inertia, and it’s really good. You know those phone forces where you would hold the phone upside down and have them scroll blindly and whatever picture or item they landed on would be forced (usually because their scrolling wasn’t doing anything). Well, this app allows you to do that type of force face-up while the spectator looks at the phone. It’s so good and “feels” exactly like it should. I’m looking forward to playing around with it some more.

Today I wanted to share a routine I’ve been using for an effect in the first season of Amalgam called Watch.

In this trick, you show the spectator a picture and you ask them to name a time, when you zoom into a clock or watch in that picture, it’s shown to have that exact time on it.

I like this one a lot and have used it quite a bit.

This is the presentation I’ve been using for it recently if I’m showing it to someone I don’t know that well. (I have a weirder presentation for people I know.)

Five Lies and a Truth

When they ask to see a trick…

“I don’t really have my cards or anything on me to show you a trick. But I can show you something that’s sort of like magic. It’s like a weird psychology test… or game. It’s even weirder than a trick in some ways.”

I open my phone and pull up the photo.

"The game is called Five Lies and a Truth. I’m going to tell you five lies about this photo, and then we’re going to follow that up with a truth. Okay?”

The spectator is probably not quite understanding what exactly I mean at this point, but they’ll agree to play along.

I count out the lies on my fingers:

1. “This group is all my best friends. They were applauding for me. It wasn’t my birthday or anything, they just really appreciate how nice and funny I am.”

2. “This photo was taken on a Thursday.”

3. “That’s Lisa. She was my girlfriend at the time this photo was taken. We dated for a while. But she said it was intimidating to be with me, because I’m so handsome. So we split up.”

4. “That’s Jerry. He’s 48, but I thought he was 42.”

5. “Everyone in this photo is still alive today.”

Your “lies” can be anything. I just make them up in the moment. But they usually include a mixture of things that sound self-aggrandizing, and some things that sound dull but perhaps will carry some weight in the spectator’s mind when they look back on it, i.e., “When he said the one guy was one age but he thought he was the other, was he trying to suggest a number to me?”

And then the last “lie” is just something to sound mildly ominous and introduce a weird energy into the mix.

“Okay,” I say, “So those were the five lies. But I said this was called Five Lies and A Truth. So there has to be one true statement as well. What makes this interesting is that you’re the one who’s going to make the true statement, okay? I want you to tell me the exact time this photo was taken.”

I say the “exact time” because I found if I just said, “the time,” they would say a very non-specific sounding time like noon or 3pm.

So maybe she says 12:19.

“And that is… true! Good job.” I say as I zoom into the photo and onto someone’s watch where she sees it says 12:19.

For me this is just the right amount of presentation for this type of trick. I want to give it a little more build than just saying: “Name a time. Look, here it is.” But on the other hand, it’s not the sort of thing that I want to build up too much either. Making it a couple minutes long and adding a bit of intrigue with the premise (“What does he mean ‘five lies and a truth’? Am I going to have to tell the truth from the lies? What exactly is the game here?”) and then having the small twist of it being their own statement that is going to be the true statement—that works for me as a good everyday routine to have in my pocket when I have a little time to kill with someone.