Mailbag #158
/I just read the post "A Cross-Cut Tweak Tweak" and I wanted to ask what your thoughts are on a particular phrase I have a problem with.
"Look at the card you cut to" I feel is problematic. I feel this line invites scrutiny from analytical participants, maybe because it actually is a lie.
I would avoid lying at this moment and say something 'neutral' like "lift up the top packet and look at the card and remember it".
I feel this will minimise scrutiny because I don't have to lie, and a participant doesn't know what to expect from a procedure in a card trick anyway. If they are convinced the deck is shuffled, and I ask them to look at a card, it shouldn't matter. But if I start lying about where the card came from, people can get hung up on that and guess that I know the identity, despite the shuffle?
Depending on the presentation I could later ask them to bury it.
And maybe you could reframe the events later?
"You have yourself cut these cards and looked at a card, somewhere in the middle of this deck." Which is still true and a bit ambiguous, but suggests it was any random card in the middle.
What are your thoughts? —PK
I understand where you’re coming from, and I wouldn’t say it’s a mistake to do it that way, but it’s not the path I would choose.
I have pretty strong faith in the deceptiveness of the Cross-Cut Force. In my experience, most people are just naturally inclined to believe that’s the card they cut to, and I think referring to it as that helps cement that reality in place, rather than creating suspicion.
And because of that, I don’t think your proposed wording adds much. Yes, if you have someone who naturally sees through the topology of the Cross-Cut Force (surprisingly rare) they can’t accuse you of lying. But they can wonder what the point of cutting the deck was if you were just going to have them look at the bottom card in the first place.
If you want to maybe blunt the “card you cut to” language. You could maybe say, “Memorize the card you cut to.” Which puts the focus on the fact they have something to do in that moment (memorize the card). Which hopefully takes any mental energy away from them thinking, “Ah, but is this the card I cut to?”
The beauty of the Cross-Cut Force is that you can’t get busted on it. As I mention in the post referenced above. If someone ever says, “That’s not the card I cut to,” you just say, “Huh? It’s not? Wait…okay, I’m confused then. Go ahead and just take the card you cut to. Or cut again to any card.” Yes, you’ll have to tap dance your way into a different trick, but there’s full plausible deniability here.
With the whole Ted K situation going on, I began wondering if you ever heard directly from anyone you put on the GLOMM’s banned member list?—DA
Yeah, there are two or three posts in the archive where I respond to someone who got kicked out of the GLOMM who ended up writing me directly. Honestly, I admire the gumption. “How dare you tell people I was convicted of sexual assault!” That’s a big swing to take.
The more impactful letters I’ve received are from the victims of some of these guys. (And they are all guys. No woman has broken the GLOMM’s glass ceiling, yet.)
I’ve also heard a couple of times from magicians who told me they struggle with these desires, and one of the factors that keeps them in line is thinking they’ll be splashed on my site if they ever did anything and it was found out. Good! Look, I don’t blame anyone for whatever fucked-up thought their brain has. I feel bad for them, so long as they don’t give in to a desire they know will harm someone else. So if imaging me busting your ass on this site is beneficial to you in any way, I’m happy to exert that extra bit of pressure.
Your post [The Coin Vanish Paradox] reminded me of this section in Designing Miracles (Darwin Ortiz page 26):—BG
In volume two of his Expert Coin Magic... Made Easy! DVD seres, David Roth teaches his handling of the visual retention coin vanish. (This is a method of pretending to place a coin in one hand while actually retaining it in the other.) In Roth's hands this is one of the most amazing visual illusions you'll ever see. Any observer would be willing to bet at least one gonad that the coin is really in the hand. Yet, after demonstrating this uncannily convincing sleight, David observes: "But, remember, as in all coin vanishes, no matter how well you do this move—even if you do it perfectly—once you open your left hand to show that the coin is gone, the spectators will look at the other hand. He goes on to say that even if you really did put the coin in your left hand and then vanished it by some other means, "When you open your hand, they will look at the other hand." He then explains, "This is where routining is most important. It's the routining that will keep spectators from suspecting the other hand." Routining is a term that magicians use to mean a variety of things. In this case, I believe that what David is calling routining is what I call design.
The Roth example demonstrates that perfect technique is not enough to create an enduring magical mystery. Similarly, misdirection is not enough, and even presentation is not enough. It's not a failure of technique, mis-direction, or presentation that leads people to look at the other hand. It's simply that it just makes sense. If the coin isn't in one hand, it's probably in the other. It's this pesky common sense that often allows laypeople to figure out what you thought was a pertect illusion. It's precisely this common sense that good design can defeat and even turn to your advantage.
Yeah, I agree with David Roth here. Even if you really put the coin in your hand and made it disappear by magic, people would still look to your other hand. As I said in that post, it’s the transfer that’s the issue. That action gives them the “answer” they need.
Where I would disagree is to say that I don’t think you can easily “routine” or “design” your way out of this issue. Sure, you can add a bunch of junk surrounding your coin vanish so that it’s no longer just a single coin vanish, but that’s not what we’re looking for.
