Mailbag #164

/

Is AI going to destroy magic? With AI now able to generate convincing photos, videos, voices, predictions, is there a point where technology just flattens the mystery out of magic? I see so many videos online where I don’t know if what I’m seeing is real or not. I don’t see how magic thrives in this environment—IS

AI will destroy some magic. It will destroy magic online. But that was already destroyed, really. We haven't had magic online for a few years. We have exposure videos. The performers have to expose the trick. If they don't, people will just say, "That's AI" or "That's video editing." So the internet is dead as a platform for actual magic, but it's kinda been that way for a while.

Television is similarly dead. Will we ever see a Copperfield-style magic special again? (And by a "Copperfield-style" show, I don't mean Epstein in the front row clapping vigorously, I mean a large-scale magic special with pre-recorded tricks and illusions.) I kind of doubt it. Maybe if it was broadcast live you could generate some excitement.

But for those of us performing socially, I think the advent of AI content only helps us.

Why?

Think of 2010 (for example). At that time, the internet was a tool to expand human connection. You could talk to your friends all around the world. You could meet new people. Discover new communities. When you watched a video on YouTube, you knew you were getting to know a real person somewhere out there.

As the internet becomes more inhuman AI slop, it's becoming less useful as a source for connection.

An interactive, cooperative, human experience (which is what social magic is at its best) therefore becomes more valuable. It offers a type of connection that is now less accessible to us than it was 10 years ago when the internet was pervasive, but still mostly human.

Will there be some people who will be fully happy watching AI videos and jacking off to their AI girlfriend? Yeah, sure. But those aren’t the people I want to perform for anyway. The people I want to perform for are the ones who are actively seeking out human interactions. And the more artificial the online world becomes, the more that group will appreciate the experiences we can offer.

This is quite the take. —AS

If Yigal Mesika can sue Craig Petty, then you definitely have a case against Magicfish and the Genii Forum for this shit.—MW

I'll save you a click. On the Genii Forum they're talking about Equivoque.

Someone linked to this post of mine as a style of Equivoque that they like.

Which garnered this response from "Magicfish."

Are we suppose to ignore the profane, vile allusion to explicit violent sexual self harm? Or is this part of what makes it your favourite? This - as well as his well documented other pedophilic, mysoginistic [sic], racist aggression have no place in entertaining the general public with magic. Shame on you for sharing it here.

What could he possibly be talking about? you ask.

Well, in the linked post on Equivoque, I talk about doing a Russian Roulette routine with one upright dildo in a series of paper bags that you plop your bare ass on one-by-one: Russian Poo-lette.

This is what he was referring to as "explicit violent sexual self harm."

So… wait… is he making a joke?

No, he's just a fucking imbecile trying to smear the site and reaching for whatever words feel dramatic enough.

You, dear reader, would probably hesitate before describing an obvious joke as a “vile allusion to explicit violent sexual self harm.” You might worry that anyone who actually read the post would conclude you lacked basic discernment. That’s because you have at least one functioning synapse in your brain.

To be clear, it doesn't seem like he has an issue if one were to put a spike through their hand. That's fine. But god forbid you put a dildo in your ass. That's SELF HARM. I'm guessing he would be shocked to learn millions of people "harm" themselves in this manner every day. And they manage to even derive some sick pleasure from it! I've heard of some people "harming" themselves in this way multiple times a night! Those poor tortured souls!

He follows this up by mentioning my "well documented other pedophilic, mysoginistic [sic], racist aggression."

Okay, sure.

Pedophilic? This one is almost refreshing. I’m more accustomed to criticism for spending too much time exposing pedophiles on this site. Is he suggesting I am one? Or that I’m too aggressive toward them? When an accusation is built entirely from bullshit, it’s hard to tell.

Mysoginistic [sic]? There are incels, like Magicfish, who have so little experience with women—and have such a distorted view of them—that they're completely incapable of understanding a fun, light-hearted, sexual relationship between adults. They fully don't understand flirting and banter. They don't have a healthy view of sex, so they see anything related to it as dirty and denigrating.

So if I write about a romantic encounter or hooking up with someone, the Magicfishes of the world assume there must have been something unseemly about it. They just don't have experiences with women where they didn’t feel unwanted or like the aggressor, so they can’t picture a playful interaction based on mutual attraction.

Similarly, if I parody a dumb chauvinist, he misses the parody. What we see as absurd, he sees as something uncomfortably close to his own worldview. So he lashes out thinking he’s a hero and not realizing he’s telling on himself for not recognizing the ridiculousness of what I’m saying.

It's okay. I don't expect a guy who removed the "gyn" from misogynist to have a great understanding of women.

Racist? This is where it fully collapses. You could say to yourself, "Well, Andy does occasionally talk shit about pedophiles. And I have read some posts where he talks about women." So you could maybe at least distort things I've said in your head to fit his interpretation. But the racist thing is pure invention.

To be fair, in my old blog I did go after racists. But I don't think he's distorting things I wrote 23 years ago. More likely, he simply added a third buzzword for dramatic symmetry.

That said, no, I won't be setting up a GoFundMe for my legal fees. Yes, it's blatant defamation. But whatever. It doesn’t really bother me.

As nice as it is when I hear of someone in magic that I respect who likes the site, I may like it even more when I hear about someone who doesn't like it and they turn out to be a total dullard.

In addition to not seeming super robust intellectually, he seems emotionally fragile too. "Shame on you for sharing it here." He says about someone sharing a link he willfully followed to a site he doesn’t like. Relax dude, it's going to be okay.

How could I, in good conscience, sue someone this delicate? I’d worry he might get overly distressed and commit some… self harm.

Dustings #141

/

For those on The Juxe mailing list, the next mix will be coming this weekend (including my Album of the Year for 2025).

Yigal Mesika’s top three most impressive tricks:

3. Electric Touch
2. Spider Pen
1. Making Craig Petty a sympathetic figure.

I don't know if Yigal Mesika is making a Legal Mistake-a (see what I did there?) or not. I don't know if Craig's video here constitutes slander or libel. Don't give a shit either. I do know that Yigal ends up looking like a bitch in this situation.

You need to get the courts involved? You can't win a battle of public opinion against Craig Petty?? Half of the magic community hates him. And the other half… also kind of hates him. If you’re in the right, there should be no issue winning this fight man-to-man. Resorting to legal action in this situation is a bad look.

I’m not 100% convinced, but I’m fairly certain this trick doesn’t pass the Green Grass Test.

It just feels like it complicates the handling. And I’m not convinced the metaphor works as well with this version.

“Just like Bob and Therea here, these two cards are now sort-of one, misaligned, and a bit awkward.”

Here’s a video from Chris G on how to handle the Damsel Cull Force when you’re in a situation where you can’t just spread the deck. For example, this would allow you to do it off a spectator’s outstretched hand.

I got an email this morning that found it odd I hadn’t written about the Epstein list, “given your crusade against child molesters.”

I didn’t realize having an issue with magicians who were convicted of sex crimes was a “crusade” exactly. It seems like it’s the default position any normal human would have.

The implication was that maybe I was protecting Copperfield. He wrote:

“You have a daily magic blog and haven't mentioned this at all, as far as I can tell. The elephant in the room hasn't vanished.”

Let me set things straight for any other dunces who don’t get it...

Yes, I have a daily magic blog.

This blog isn’t called “Current Events In Magic: Your Source for Magic News.” I don’t give a shit about famous magicians. I don’t watch other magicians. I don’t even particularly like magic other than the very narrow scope in which I present it to the people in my life.

“Buh, buh, but you always post about magicians convicted of sex crimes!” Yes, I know. But not because I like to, or because it’s “newsworthy.” I do it because—unbelievably—no real magic organization tracks it. And I think there should be some record of these offenses online. Especially since a lot of these guys go right back into performing for children the moment they can. But it’s not a subject I’m looking for more opportunities to write about.

And now you’re asking me to cover something there are 436,000 results for online?

I don’t think you need me for this one; you’ve all got this covered. Congrats, you finally give a shit if the magician involved is famous enough.

A Message For Supporters

/

When I was thirteen, I was a freshman in high school, and I thought I would get myself a Rocky Raccoon and get really good at it and then I’d go out around town and girls would be so charmed by it that they wouldn’t be able to help but drag me to bed with them. 

I wasn’t exactly wrong. If I had gotten a Rocky Raccon and mastered it to the point where it really seemed alive, girls (and women) would have been charmed by it. Where I was mistaken was in thinking that this ability with a puppet would translate into an ounce of poontang. What did I know? I was a young idiot. No woman was going to be seduced by that. More likely I would have ended up like most young puppeters: sticking my dong in the puppet at some point.

As a young kid, I was interested in almost anything even tangentially related to magic: puppetry/ventriloquism, origami, juggling, shadow puppets, optical illusions. 

In my later teen years, my interest narrowed more towards "just" magic. But that was still a pretty broad  category. Certainly my interest was always on close-up magic, but I would spend time learning about escapology, stage illusions, card cheating sleights.

As the decades wore on my interests narrowed further to the point where now I pretty much only care about tricks that are performable in casual situations with a carefree vibe and without having to carry a bunch of shit with me. 

This is a big change from someone who used to contemplate building himself an Interlude illusion despite having no stage-performing aspirations.

I think I imagined I would just keep it in my living room.

The perhaps-obvious, perhaps-counterintuitive observation here is that the more I’ve narrowed my interests in magic: the more I perform, the greater number of tricks I’ve mastered, and the more impact I’ve had with magic on the people in my life.

Why do I mention this now? Because I feel my interests narrowing again and that may affect the types of things I cover in the Keepers monthly magazine.

Digging into the Zero Carry concept and pursuing the Carefree Philosophy has put me in a mindset of eliminating as many props and gimmicks as I can while still keeping a varied, robust repertoire.

I’m really leaning towards two opposite ends of the spectrum: Zero Carry tricks that I can do anywhere without carrying anything special, and Wonder Room tricks where the prop is on permanent display and is something that stands out as an unsual object, for performing when I’m at home.

The fantasy is that if you broke into my home, you would not find drawers and drawers full of secret magic props and gimmicks (like I have now). Instead you would find a small library of magic books, a couple different magic-related displays (one of decks with interesting backstories and one of unusual objects), and that’s it.

That’s the long-term goal. I don’t know if it’s fully achievable. But as an intermediary step, I’d like to limit my “secret” props and gimmicks to stuff that can fit in a shoebox, rather than filling up a large storage cabinet as it does now.

The rest of my repertoire will live in my head or be “housed” in an appropriate location.

So, as I said, this may affect the type of material I cover in Keepers. I’m going to be learning more towards magic that doesn’t require a special object to perform (unless that object can be seen as a display piece). I’ll probably be pulling more from books and videos as well.

I mention it because I know some people prefer when I review “stuff”—like individual tricks you can buy. They don’t mind having a storage bin full of magic. They like collecting physical tricks and objects. And if that’s you, you may feel like you’re getting less value from the monthly magazine and might not want to continue supporting, which is fully understandable. I just wanted to give you the heads-up that that’s the direction I’m feeling pulled in at the moment.

To be clear, this may entirely change as well. I don’t really plan each step along my journey with magic. I just sort of follow my whims. In fact, as I was writing the beginning of this post, I started thinking, “You know, I really should get a Rocky Raccoon. That looks fun.” So who knows. The magazine may fully be spring-puppet related in a few months.

Revelations Follow-Up

/

I was asked:

When I see products or tricks that have very specific forces built in (the jack of spades is holding the 3 of diamonds, the four of clubs hidden the Sharpie logo, and the like) I pull back.  Because of the magician's brain I am thinking it's just a force and the audience is going to think it is a force. OR even if they don't know that it is a force it feels less magical because it was preordained.

For example, I have no problem at all using a cross cut force. When I see another magician use that it doesn't cause the same response. I think that is because that is the method, where the reveal being etched in stone is effect and maybe(?) that is why I am bristling.

I'm not looking for convincing on the merit of any particular method or effect. Instead I'm asking how to manage this blind spot so I'm not missing out on something that creates a real sense of wonder for those I am performing for. —GM

The subject line of this email was: "How to get out of magician brain?"

The truth is, this is not "magician brain." This is just regular human brain.

We did focus-group testing of revelations back in 2018. Here's what our results were.

If you have a seemingly immutable revelation, then people are always going to assume the card was forced on them.

And if the force you used was a Riffle Force or a Classic Force or some other quick force that doesn't emphasize a genuine choice for the spectator, then that's all the trick is going to amount to in their head. "He must have made me pick the card that was embroidered on the back of his jacket."

The problem here isn't that they didn't believe the embroidering magically appeared on your jacket after they selected the card. They're never going to believe that.

Even if you spread an ungimmicked deck on the table face-up and let them select any card, they're still not going to think the embroidery popped into existence after their selection. They're still just going to think, "How did he make me pick this card?"

That's okay, because that's still a trick. There's still a mystery there.

The problem comes when you use a force they can easily brush off as a force (Slip Force, riffle, classic). If they don't have any conviction that their decisions made a difference along the way, then they will brush off the whole thing as a force.

You can't eradicate the idea of a force completely. You can't keep them from saying, "He must have made me choose that card." But with the right techniques, you can make them follow that thought with, "Wait… but how could he have made me choose that card?"

You can make “It must have been a force” an unsatisfyingly incomplete answer to what they saw.

Even then, as I said yesterday, I don't think Card Selection —> Card Revelation is that strong of a trick.

But if you're committed to doing one (or if you've invested in one of those props with the baked-in force), here's how to make it as strong as possible:

  • Look for forces that involve genuine selections and free choices along the way.

  • Consider Bi-Reveals

  • Add trickery to the reveal itself. If I can show you the back of my jacket at the start of the trick and there's nothing on it, then you can't just brush off the whole thing as a simple force. Now we're approaching an actual strong trick (if still a kind of stupid one).

Revelations

/

You have talked and posted a lot on card forces along the years. Specially on making them bulletproof. Reverse psychology force, damsel technique, carte blanche, etc.

Do you have any interesting uses or revelations for those?—JFC

I'll start by saying I don't think a force followed by a card revelation is particularly strong magic. It's a little too much like… Set Up > Punchline. "You picked a card. And that's the card that's on the back of my shirt." It's too tidy for my tastes.

I don't really have catch-all revelations that I use frequently. Revelations that can be used in any situation tend to feel generic (because… well… being able to be used anywhere at any time is almost the definition of generic).

But there are some directions you can go in to create stronger card revelations.

First, let's imagine the most basic card reveal. They pick a card and you turn over an index card that was on the table and written on it is the name of the card they chose.

If that's the most "basic" reveal we can imagine, what directions can we take it to make it more powerful?

Here are some directions I've explored and what I've learned from them. I'll finish with my favorite technique.

Make It Bigger

The larger the physical revelation is, the greater impact it tends to have.

Not because the trick becomes dramatically more impossible (though it does become harder to imagine switching a large, committed prediction), but because large revelations are inherently more memorable.

When I revealed a force card with 100 candles, the moment stuck far more than it would have with a simple written prediction.

The scale of the reveal creates its own memorable atmosphere and ambiance. People don't remember the specific card necessarily, but they remember the feeling of walking into that candlelit room.

This works as a way to build up an otherwise standard card trick. But I think you really only get one of these moments per person you perform for. I used to think if their card appeared on a billboard one time, and then in skywriting another, then spelled out in seashells another, it could "feel" like three different types of tricks. But I think audiences are savvier than that. Unless you have a really compelling storyline that goes along with the reveal, I think they see them as similar effects.

Make It Permanent

Another direction to go in is to make your reveal permanent:

  • A tattoo

  • Etched in marble

  • Carved into a tree

The fact that the revelation is going to live on long after the trick has ended gives the trick more resonance.

This works fairly well to lend weight to a reveal. But it can feel sort of arbitrary on its own.

Ideally, the permanence has some purpose. Otherwise they’ll feel like, “Wait… why didn’t he just write that on an index card?”

Make It Personal

I've found that the more the spectator is integrated into the revelation, the stronger it is.

For example, turning over a matching card on the table is nowhere near as strong as revealing that they're sitting on a matching card.

Other examples where the spectator is "close" to the revelation in some way:

- You ask them to close their eyes while you put a necklace on them before the trick. At the end they pull the necklace out from behind their shirt and see that the pendant matches the card they selected.

- In Joshua Quinn's Penguin Live lecture he has the participant repeat a specific sentence, which he records on his phone. The spectator then selects a card. When the sentence they spoke earlier is played backwards, it reveals the card they selected.

- You tell them you'll teach them a trick but they have to take an oath not to tell anyone how it's done. You take a picture of them taking the oath.

After that, they select a card, the 5 of Hearts, for example, without you seeing it. You "read their mind" and say they're thinking of the 5 of Hearts. "Want to know how I did it?" you ask. And you reveal they didn't freely select that card. They were drawn to it because you planted the seed, which they picked up on earlier in the interaction. And you draw their attention back to the photo.

People expect to be part of the selection of the card. Being part of the reveal of the card is unexpected and makes the whole thing feel a little more intimate and personal. Especially when compared to pulling out your Magician's Insurance Policy or something like that.

All of these techniques work to some degree. But my favorite approach, which gets the most affecting reactions is this:

Make It Old

When I can make the revelation feel like the culmination of something that began days, weeks, or years earlier—that's when I get the strongest reaction.

Examples:

- In my last book, I had a trick where the prediction was found in my old high school yearbook in the message left by this "weird kid" I went to school with. (That trick wasn't strictly a card force/revelation, but it's close enough.) Making the prediction something that is decades old gives a whole new feel to it.

- Get an old photo of you as a kid sitting at a table. Photoshop a playing card on the table and then get a hard copy version of the photo printed out and display it somewhere. You can now offer to show someone the first card trick you ever learned. They select any card and before they turn it over, you say, "I already know it's the 10 of Clubs." You then explain it's always the 10 of Clubs and bring their attention to an old framed photo of you on a bookshelf with you and the 10 of Clubs on the table in front of you.

- Sit down with your friend, chat a bit. At some point say, "I'm having the weirdest sense of deja vu." Shake it off. Have them shuffle and deal off some cards. "Wait," you say, "Did I already show this to you?" Your friend doesn't think so. "Huh, it's that weird deja vu again." They finally select a card, turn it over. It's the 4 of Diamonds. You look at it. Furrow your brow and say, "No way. I remember what it is now." You bring them back to your bedroom and dig in your nightstand. "Last year I was keeping a dream journal for a few months. I sort of gave up on it because it wasn't that interesting. But look…" You flip to an entry you made 14 months ago about a dream you had where your friend came over and they picked a card and it was the 4 of Diamonds.

You can leave some blank spaces and write in Frixion pen or erasable ink so you can re-use that entry for other friends. You can leave a blank for what they're wearing as well, which you fill in earlier in the night before you do the trick.

Old children's drawings, letters from deceased relatives, a voicemail or answering machine tape, doodles in a school notebook, inscriptions in a book, etc. Anything that feels like it's been around for a while could make a good "substrate" for a prediction that seems old.

With planning, you can do something that genuinely is old.

Whenever I'm visiting friends or family with very young kids, at some point I will secretly shoot a video with the kid where I spread a deck and have them take one. I'm talking about young children, as young as little infants who have to crawl to the cards. I'll say, "Okay, Timmy. What card is she going to choose?" In some manner the kid will identify a card. Either by picking one up or moving it or whatever.

I will then wait as long as possible to perform a trick for their parent. The longer you wait, the stronger it is. I've waited years to finally perform this. The longest I've waited is 14 years. I had my friend pick a card and I said, "And Tim [her son] is going to tell you what it is." I called Tim into the room. "What card did your mom pick?" Tim, who is in high school now, is like, "I have no clue." "You forgot?" I say. "Oh, come on. Well… you knew it at one point, dude." I shake my head. "Hmm… maybe I still have that video." I look through my phone. "Yup, here it is." Now I'm showing him and his mom a video of him in his playroom as a kid crawling up to a spread of cards, pulling out some and chewing on one. The same one his mom would pick years later.

You might say, "Well, the reason that got such a good reaction was because of the emotional element of seeing her child from all those years ago." Yes, of course that's true. That's a particularly personal usage of the technique.

But even with the less personal examples cited above, there’s something about the apparent weight of time behind a prediction that makes it more intriguing. Whether they fully believe the “age” of the prediction or not, it can make people feel as though they’ve been swept up in a story that was already in motion. And that’s a much more powerful place to land than, “Here’s something I just wrote down about that thing you just did.”

Mailbag #163

/

I’m writing in relation to your recent post about John Bannon’s 51 Fat Chances. Like you, I also ran into issues with the final Australian count elimination. Much of my audience has a background in science, and they quickly realize that the process is entirely deterministic (although, admittedly, one probably doesn’t need a science degree to notice that).

For this reason, I very much welcomed your proposed alternative using prime number principles combined with a Flavio Josephus–style elimination procedure. I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that this type of elimination significantly expands the options and flexibility regarding the final number of cards in the remaining pile.

Specifically, in addition to 7, nearby prime numbers such as 11 and 13 (and even 5, though it may be a bit low) work just as well. With 11 or 13, the procedure functions in the same way and arguably looks even more impossible. Numbers one above or below those primes can also be handled using the same solutions you already propose for cases around 7.—MO

Yup, this is a good point. You’ll have to handle the original discards slightly differently (perhaps only doing it twice if you’re going with 5, or having them discard “3 or 4” cards each time if you’re going with 11), but this would definitely work.

I may end up shifting to one of these options. When asking for a “magic word” to use with the effect, I feel you often get something in the 6-8 letter range, which isn’t ideal as far as looking fully random. So doing it with 11 cards may be a better option. Although that does extend the final selection portion somewhat, it might be worth it.

As the #1 Jerx Points…haver… guy, I think it’s fair to say I’m your #1 fan. So maybe that makes me overly-defensive when it comes to your work, but I was wondering if it drives you crazy when you see your concepts shared without any recognition of your role in creating or popularizing the ideas. It makes me nuts. Like seeing someone cover your favorite band and not call it a cover song.

I read an article online about extending your magic tricks so they don’t conclude until hours or days later and your site wasn’t mentioned at all. As if this was just a common technique regularly used by magicians before you started writing about it. I see it all the time with various ideas you’ve written about. Even just the concept of “social magic” was something I never heard codified or talked about before you.

I told you before to start a Jerx Did It First series to deal with these guys. Don’t let your legacy be diluted! —EV

First, I appreciate your passion, but chill.

Second, no, it doesn't drive me crazy. If attribution was super important to me, I would have written this site under my own name.

A couple times a week people send me articles or posts that are reiterating concepts I've written about on this site without any reference back to it. It’s sometimes strange, but not at all upsetting. (It's weirder when they're charging people for their reiteration of something I wrote here for free.)

As dumb as this site can be, I also know that it changed the way people think about amateur/social magic, because it wasn't something people considered much as its own distinct thing before I started. The problem, I think, for anyone writing about the subject after me is that it wasn't like there were a bunch of people talking about this branch of magic and they're just adding their voice to the chorus of people writing about it. Instead, it was a subject that was hardly ever talked about. Then I came along and blitzkrieged the subject for years. And then other people came to it later. So it’s difficult for them to seem like they’re doing anything other than repeating ideas I already covered.

I genuinely don’t care one way or the other about credit. But if you’re writing about a niche subject that’s been covered extensively by a well-known writer in that area, then—for your own sake—you should credit them. Not as a courtesy to them, but because it helps you. It shows people what you’re building on, which lets them see what your unique contribution actually is. Without that context, your ideas just get absorbed into work people already associate with someone else, and your own work becomes invisible.

When is the Zero Carry issue of Keepers planned for? —AMD

It probably won’t be a single issue. It will probably be a recurring feature in the magazine going forward. More details on this in a post later this week.

Any advice for someone starting a magic blog in 2026? (Other than “don’t waste your time.”) —CR

Yes. Do not use AI to do the writing for you. When people read a blog, it’s not just for information. The best blogs allow you to feel connected to the person writing them. You get acquainted with their style, sense of humor, thought patterns, personality. And then, on some level at least, you feel: “Oh, I know this person.” And that satisfies a biological need for connection.

You may see your writing as this imperfectly jagged crystal and think, “I’m going to use AI to polish this up.” AI will polish it to a smooth sphere. It polishes everything into a smooth sphere. It will polish you to blandness.

We thought AI would help everyone express their ideas by turning them into “good” writers. Instead, it made “good” writing so commonplace it’s meaningless. And now individuality and personality matter more than ever. So make sure your writing expresses that and sounds like you.

Also, don’t waste your time.

Dustings #140

/

There is nothing quite like the gentle beauty of hand shadow puppetry.

,

,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

When I'm done with this site, I'm going to do a large-format, Taschen-style coffee table book of emails from people offering to send me their product for free if I'll talk about it on the site.

And then you’ll see my response where I say, "I don't really do that, but if you want, you can send it to me and if I like it and end up using it, I’ll write it up for my review magazine. Or if you want it on the site, you can send ti to me for my What's the Worst Thing About series.”

And then I never hear from them again.

Now, I don't mind. I don't need more stuff to write about. But it's somewhat telling how much "I'm going to tell people the worst thing about your product" scares people away. Is that not exactly what you expect someone reviewing your product to do?

Craig Petty has made a habit of "exposing" his tricks on his YouTube channel (for example, this video that he put up just hours ago) so you know what you're getting when you buy it. That's a pretty bold thing to do, especially because I know Craig came up in the same era that I did, where we were told the secret is what you were buying.

In an email earlier today, Ellusionist tried a similar thing.

The Jungle Book Test - Method Revealed

A stupidly simple book test anyone can learn in like 10 seconds. There are 2 words to remember - and 1 of those words is 'remember' to make it even easier. The pages repeat the real story with the first word on each page changed to either the word MOON or the word REMEMBER. They open the book to any page. No force.

They remember the first word from that random page You ask them 1 question "could you easily draw a picture of this word? And then NAIL their freely chosen word - because nobody can draw the word 'remember' BOOM. Mind freaking read!

Here's a bit of marketing help for Ellusionist, or anyone taking a similar route in their marketing.

DON'T EXPOSE THE SECRET IF THE SECRET IS THE ONE THING EVERYONE IS HOPING IT ISN'T.

Inelegantly jamming the same two words at the start of every page of the Jungle Book is not a selling point.

The fact that you have to use your own book is already a weakness. The fact that they can only look at the first word is a weakness. The fact that it's fully unexaminable is a weakness. And now you're saying, "It also uses the first method a reasonably intelligent spectator might assume." You should have kept that part to yourself.

Here's what your selling point should have been: "It's bad, but that's why it's $15."