On Leading Reactions

If, like me, you enjoy performing effects where you are not claiming to be the prime mover behind making the magic happen, then you need to learn how to properly react to your effects. I see this bungled far too often, and it's something I used to not be very good at myself because it was something I failed to think about.

Then, one night, I was at a bar in NYC and a guy I was there with had one of those pens that tips over after a while. He balanced the pen on the mouth of a beer bottle and said to one of the girls who was with us, "I want you to concentrate and send your energy to that pen." Now, that's fine. It's not some great presentation by any means, and I have my own thoughts on Spectator as Magician/Mentalist that this doesn't really align with, but that's a post for another day. 

So this girl looks at the pen, nothing happens, the guy says "really concentrate," she continues looking and the pen falls. Her mouth drops open and she turns to the guy and he kind of smirks and raises an eyebrow. And her reaction immediately changed. She pointed at him and said in a sing-songy voice, "That's a good one." 

I watched her go from thinking something crazy had just happened to knowing it was a trick, just based on this guy's reaction. Or lack thereof. That's the point: You have to react. 

If you're playing the part of the traditional magician, then feel free to play it cool after the effect. 

But if you're rejecting that role and instead you're showing them some strange object you found, or trying some experiment you read about, or doing something where they are manifesting the power, then you NEED to react, or the whole experience falls apart. Not reacting is just another way of saying, "That was me. I did that. I'm special." If that's your plan, just take credit for it from the beginning. That's a lot less scuzzy than this route which amounts to, "I'm going to put the focus on you [or some external thing] to capture your attention, but then when we're done I'm going to take the credit for it."

Whatever experience you're creating, if you're not taking direct responsibility for it, then it has to move you too. Why would you show someone something if the outcome of that thing had no affect on you?

Yeah, but Andy, why would I have her concentrate on the pen unless I know she would knock it over?

Well, that's the question you have to account for in your presentation. Maybe you have some conceptually intriguing idea behind your presentation. But you don't necessarily need one. It can just be, "Can we try this thing I read about? I've been trying it all day, but it's supposed to work better with someone like you." [Someone younger, older, left-handed, female, male, smarter, dumber, more intuitive, or whatever.]

The thing is, if you just act like you knew she'd be able to knock it over, then you're still playing the role of the magician. Except now your magic power is a stupid one. It's "being able to identify people who can knock over a pen with their mind."

But if the pen falls and you bring the fingers of both hands to your temples and—with your eyes wide—laughingly say, "What. The. Fuuuuuuuu... Are you kidding me?!" you're going to prolong the moment of mystery. Your reaction is a universal rep that you can use for most tricks. 

When your reaction is in harmony with the trick, you extend and amplify the experience of mystery for the spectator. If it's not, you just let them off the hook. 

You may feel uncomfortable because you think I'm suggesting you totally flip out or something. That's not what I'm saying (unless it's the type of trick that causes them to flip out, then I recommend you join in with their reaction). Here is the key regarding how to react. You want to consistently react a little bit stronger than they are. That is what I mean by "leading reactions." You are setting the pace. What I've found, particularly if I'm showing something to someone for the first time, is that people tend to be guarded with their reactions. Even if they see something amazing some people can feel, "Am I stupid for thinking that's amazing." So sometimes it will be your reaction that gives them the permission to lose their shit.

Again, you're meant to be leading. So I imagine it like leading someone on a walk through the woods. If you're behind them they can't follow you at all. If you sprint out way ahead of where they are, you can't guide them. But if you stay a little bit ahead and lead the way, you can show them someplace new and bring them somewhere they may never have gotten to on their own.

Coming in the JAMM #9

October's issue will feature some scary(ish) magic, just in time for halloween. Not like the kind where it's a normal card trick and I place the card in the deck and it comes to the top and OH MY GOD THERE'S A FAKE SPIDER ON YOUR HAND! But more like the creepy or at least headfucky kind. 

Included in this will be an article on The Seance as a performance style, and my favorite way to start a little mini-seance with people (or it could be used as a standalone effect).

You know the drill, if you haven't subscribed yet, you can subscribe to The JAMM here.

The Impromptu Toolkit: Quinta by Phill Smith

My Impromptu Toolkit consists of techniques that I use regularly to create magic on the fly. It differs from my impromptu repertoire, which is made up of specific effects that I can get into in an impromptu fashion. The Toolkit is for the purpose of creating improvised impromptu effects.

Quinta by Phill Smith

Where it's available: You can get the basics of it in his Penguin Live lecture, but I would buy the ebook which is on sale here. There are a lot of great variations and subtleties in the book.

What is it? It's a way of forcing one out of five objects.

What does it look like? In its most basic form you set five objects on a row on the table. You ask for any number between one and a googolplex (theoretically, but I usually stick to 1-100). Then you count back and forth along that the row of items until you get to the named number and it is your force item.

Now, you might say, "Well, that's a needlessly complicated process to choose one item out of five. If you were a real magician (or a real mentalist) you would just have them pick an object, or, at most, name a number 1-5 and immediately count to that number. So this won't look real to your spectator and will seem less impressive."

That sounds right in theory. But I have found the exact opposite is true in practice. 

From my experience performing prediction effects with a small number of items, and talking about those tricks with people after I perform them, I've found that I can't wrestle people away from the notion that they must have just picked the one that was most likely to be picked. "I picked the item on the far right, everyone must go for that." "I chose the stapler, everyone must pick the stapler." "I chose number 2, everyone must choose number 2." 

Now, they don't truly believe everyone makes that choice, but it's enough to believe that whatever they ended up with was significantly more likely to be chosen (for some reason) and that I'm just playing the odds. This is certainly a more rational belief than the idea that I was endowed by god with the ability to predict a one in five choice.

The thing is, even if you mention this to someone, I find that doesn't help that much. What I mean is, if you say, "So you're thinking of one of these objects. Now, maybe everyone tends to think of the same object [or the same number 1-5], so I want you to change your mind a few times if you want and then settle on one the objects, that will be your choice." Even if you give that little speech, it only change their thought process from "I must have picked what everyone picks" to "I must have settled on what everyone settles on." And the only way to show that's not the case is to repeat the trick, but most of these types of tricks aren't designed to be repeated. 

Before Quinta I had pretty much given up on these tricks because I could get such better reactions with other types of effects. But I've gone back to some of these effects with Quinta and have had a lot of success with them. Even though, ultimately, outcome is the same—the outcome is still a matter of 1 in 5—it feels more difficult when you're counting to a randomly chosen number from 1 to 100. And the reason it feels more difficult is because it genuinely would be. If we had 5 items and I asked you to pick one or name a number between 1 and 5, I would have a better than 20% chance of guessing what you picked based on my knowledge of what numbers, positions, or items are more psychologically more likely to be picked. But if you just gave me a number from 1 to 100, it would be much more difficult to predict in advance what object would land at that number.

So, for me, the Quinta process of selecting an item is 100% justified. And I'll even paraphrase what I said above sometimes when presenting it. In other words, I'll say, "If I asked you to choose one of these coins, I might have good chance of knowing which one you'd pick based on where it is in the row or its value. And even by saying that, I might be pushing your towards a less-obvious coin that I want you to pick. To avoid any of that, we're going to do this randomly...."

I often have the number chosen truly randomly, perhaps the first number that pops up on a keno board. Or the last 2 digits of the next license plate that passes by. Or you can say, "I want you to count how many red cars you see on the way to my apartment" and then do it with that number (A great idea used in a different context by Mark Levy).

Or, sometimes I'll give them a free choice of a number. But, as I said, even though the eventual outcome is still 1 in 5, it seems much less likely that I could know what number they would choose, and what object it would lead to, when they have the choice of 1-100. Plus it's just more interesting theatrically, the counting back and forth, rather than just counting from 1 to 5. There's a bit of mystery. Like watching a giant prize wheel spin. Where will it land?

For me, this is a much more straightforward way of getting to a single object than a traditional 5-item equivoque. Just imagine someone coming up to the spectator after a performance and saying, "How was the item chosen?"

Quinta
"I named a number and we counted to that number to determine the object."

Equivoque
"I pushed two towards him. Then from the three that were left, I picked up two, then I handed him one, and we used that one."

And that's a process some people feel is good equivoque.

Speaking of...the book also contains a technique called Triforce by Seamus Maguire. This is a one in three force that is very good and much better than equivoque when you get down to three items (in my opinion). Go with the advanced handling for it. The basic is too...basic (and transparent, in my mind).

I don't really do "reviews" on this site (I save those for the JAMM) but I definitely recommend picking up Quinta for these reasons:

1. It's one of the most used methods in my impromptu toolkit.
2. I'll be making a pdf available for free to Quinta owners with some small additional ideas. Including a couple deceptions that allow you to be exceedingly fair, to this level of specificity: "You're going to name any number from 10-100, we'll start counting with the first coin on the left-side of the row, '1, 2, 3...' back and forth until we get to your number." It would seem impossible to be more fair than that.
3. A friend of mine has a very tight little triple prediction type effect that I'll be writing up for the JAMM soon. It, in part, relies on Quinta and that won't be explained in the write-up.

I don't know Phill, but I'm a big admirer of his work and I think the book has a lot of great ideas. (I really like the watch idea for choosing a number.) The technique has applications that are much broader than just, "I predicted the one item out of five you would choose." And there are a lot of effects in the book to demonstrate those applications which will get you thinking beyond just the basic usage. 

The good news is, Quinta is really just limited by your own imagination. The bad news is, that's a meaningless statement because so is every other goddamn thing in the entire universe. If you're really dumb you can come up with two ideas for how to use a computer. If you're really creative you can come up with 1000 ways to use a grapefruit spoon. That's the whole relationship between "your imagination" and "things." At some point, at the limit of your imagination, you run out of ideas for everything. 

Gardyloo #33

A reader sent me this screen-shot from Josh Jay's Reel Magic lecture. 

It's my favorite lecturer and my new-favorite lecturee in his super-secret, hyper-elite, platinum-level GLOMM regalia. 

It's always good when I see some GLOMM stuff out in the wild. Especially when I get to rub it in Josh Jay's pretty face at the same time. You don't see anyone wearing a Josh Jay shirt, do you?

You do?

Ok.

Andi Gladwin doesn't count. 

---

If I wanted to write a boring but helpful book for the amateur magician, it would be about the uses of the standard couch in casual magic effects. The couch is a tool that is not in the arsenal of professional magicians. But as a non-pro, you should take advantage of it. Your couch is like a giant close-up mat that you can sit on that is loaded with holdouts and servantes. I'm not trying to be funny or stupid with this suggestion. I'm constantly shoving shit between cushions, or grabbing stuff out from them. I'll ditch or switch items behind pillows. I'll plant things I need access to right behind the back of the top of the couch, so I can snag them in the casual motion of resting my arm along the back of the couch. With the audiences focus elsewhere, I'll drop something and kick it under the couch for a very clean vanish.

The deck switch I've used most in my life involves the spectator spreading all the cards over the coffee table to mix them up. Then I square up the deck, and—in the process of shifting from facing the coffee table to facing each other on the couch—the deck is shoved down the cushion near the arm of the couch and another deck is removed from a few inches away. I have a lot of moments built into tricks where I'm doing something sneaky in the process of adjusting how we're situated on the couch.

This isn't the sort of stuff I would bother writing up in detail because it's just something that's going to be specific to you and how you interact with your environment. And I guess that's the broader generic advice here: always be aware of your environment. 

But specifically I think performing on a couch can be advantageous. I feel like good stuff tends to happen on couches. Maybe there's some sort of intimacy that comes with sharing the same piece of furniture. I feel people never say, "Let's sit on the couch and argue." A lot of my best interactions have happened while facing someone else on a couch: tons of deep conversations, making-out, magic tricks, card games, dry humping, jumping on it nexst to Oprah to profess my love for Katie Holmes. I'm Team Couch all the way.

---

Oof. The Magic Transcribed twitter account continues to post things that I find difficult to watch (or read).

043 Video pic.twitter.com/zB5rDpRjt1

— Magic Transcribed (@TranscribeMagic) September 6, 2017

043 Transcript pic.twitter.com/abOZ2ClmNE

— Magic Transcribed (@TranscribeMagic) September 6, 2017

---

This is the most Rick Lax picture in the world. 

Do some elementary math and hit the like button. Rick has made a career with those instructions. It should be on his tombstone.

---

Finally, I just recently learned that magician Dan Huffman passed away late last year. If you recognize the name it might be for the tricks Hellophane and Gidrah which were release a couple years ago by Penguin.

I didn't really know Dan other than that he was a fan of this blog, which pretty much makes me think well of anyone. I wish I knew him better because, as I've learned since finding out about his passing, he and I thought along parallel lines in many cases in regards to magic.

One idea he shared with me that made me laugh was that if you get stuck with some gospel magic props—let's say you buy a bunch of stuff blind from an estate sale—and you're not a gospel magician, you can just draw a swastika on Jesus' forehead and change the presentation so it's about Charles Manson.

(There's nothing sacrilegious about that. That picture is clearly not Jesus. I hate to break it to you, gospel magicians, but Jesus wasn't a honkey.)

That's the sort of thinking I appreciate. He'll be missed.

Me: An Intimate Portrait

This comes from my old blog. I could have sworn I'd reposted it here already, but I can't seem to find it. So maybe I didn't. And since the vast majority of the people who read this site weren't around for the old one, I'm reposting it now so you can truly get a peek into my soul.

From The Magic Circle Jerk, January 9th, 2004

People email me and ask who I am, or if we've ever met. In all honesty there is no reason why anyone should know who I am. But I did want people to get to know who I am (as a person) a little bit more. So I went to a lame website and found one of those lame email questionnaires that people love to send around the first time they ever get an email address. And I filled it out for you, loyal reader. I hope it gives you a better idea of who I am and what I'm all about.

LIVING ARRANGEMENTS? I live with my grandma in an assisted living facility because it was cheaper than an apartment and I love playing Canasta.

WHAT BOOK ARE YOU READING NOW? The Bible by Jesus H. Christ.

WHAT'S ON YOUR MOUSE PAD? My elbow.

FAVOURITE BOARD GAME? Marvin's Magic Game. 2nd Place: Strip Marvin's Magic Game.

FAVOURITE MAGAZINE? 1980's era Genii magazine because I hate quality editing and typesetting and I live my life according to Tripp's Tips. 

FAVOURITE SMELLS? A freshly mowed lawn. Oh, and pussy.

FAVOURITE SOUNDS? Babbling brook. Oh, and babbling pussy.

WORST FEELING IN THE WORLD? Accidentally getting your balls stuck in your asshole and then having to shit real bad but being nowhere near a bathroom and having to clench your ass real tight.

WHAT IS THE FIRST THING YOU THINK OF WHEN YOU WAKE UP IN THE MORNING? Jeff McBride.

ROLLER COASTER, SCARY OR EXCITING? Roller coasters are totally awesome! Was totally awesome a choice? 

HOW MANY RINGS BEFORE YOU ANSWER THE PHONE? I never answer before 75 rings, so I don't seem desperate.

FUTURE DAUGHTER'S NAME? Ms. Darling Q. Princess.

FAVOURITE FOODS? Broccoli stem casserole, broccoli stem stew, and pickled broccoli stems.

CHOCOLATE OR VANILLA? If we're talking ice cream, it's vanilla. If we're talking cake, it's chocolate. If we're talking bitches, then brother, I likes all kinds.

DO YOU LIKE TO DRIVE FAST? Well, let's just say I don't like to not drive not not fast.

DO YOU SLEEP WITH A STUFFED ANIMAL? Well, you could say I do, but there isn't much "sleeping" going on. Know what I mean! (sound of hi-fives all around). 

STORMS - COOL OR SCARY? Oh, definitely scary. Because when there is a storm that means God's angry, right? If so, what could ever be "cool" about God being angry?

WHAT TYPE WAS YOUR FIRST CAR? The strong-silent type.

IF YOU COULD MEET ONE PERSON DEAD OR ALIVE? I'd meet one person alive. Because if I met a dead person I'd be all like "Oh shit, a ghost!" or "Oh shit! A zombie." Which wouldn't be cool because I gave up swearing for my New Year's resolution. And I'm scared of ghosts (and zombies).

FAVOURITE ALCOHOLIC DRINK? Whole milk.

WHAT IS YOUR ZODIAC SIGN? Librataurius

DO YOU EAT THE STEMS OF BROCCOLI? No, I'm allergic.

IF YOU COULD HAVE ANY JOB YOU WANTED WHAT WOULD IT BE? Grammar Host at the Magic Cafe.

EVER BEEN IN LOVE? I loved Crystal Pepsi. But they don't make it anymore.

IS THE GLASS HALF EMPTY OR HALF FULL? Well, if it's half full of whole-milk or Crystal Pepsi, I don't care what semantics we use...I'm there! 

FAVOURITE MOVIE: Santa With Muscles

ARE YOU A LEFTY OR A RIGHTY? I'm a multiple amputee.

DO YOU TYPE WITH YOUR FINGERS ON THE CORRECT KEYS? Yed. 

WHAT'S UNDER YOUR BED? A dead hooker.

WHAT IS YOUR FAVOURITE NUMBER? Hmmm. Let's see. What was it again? Wait. No, hold on, I know I have one. Let's see. Hmmmmmmm. Okay, okay, okay. One. Yup, one. NO, WAIT-- TWO!!! No, I was right the first time. It's one.

WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST FAILING? It's one of two things: The fact that I bite my nails or that I secretly hate black people.

FAVOURITE SPORT TO WATCH? Women's naked jumping-jack national championships.

SAY ONE NICE THING ABOUT THE PERSON WHO SENT THIS TO YOU. He's got a Huge Cock.

PERSON YOU SENT THIS TO WHO IS MOST LIKELY TO RESPOND. Hugh Cockman.

PERSON YOU SENT THIS TO WHO IS LEAST LIKELY TO RESPOND? Pat, that guy's a Huge Cock.

Dear Jerxy: Transitioning

Dear Jerxy: The post you wrote on the process you go through to acclimate people to a different style of performance was exactly what I needed. I've followed your blog since almost the beginning and it changed the way I approached a lot of my performances. Sometimes this translated into bigger and more intense responses than I've ever received from tricks. But sometimes it seemed to lead to confusion. Not anymore. I have my own variation on the path you laid out to transition from simpler effects to the immersive style and it's been working extremely well for me. I'm having more fun and so are my friends.

Signed,
Currently Undergoing Nice Transition

Dear CUNT: You didn't actually ask a question there so it's strange for me to shoehorn your email into a Deary Jerxy post, but I'm nothing if not resourceful. I'm going to use your email as a chance to talk about something I use to help me gauge someone's interest in traditional magic and to establish a baseline with them that I can then use to differentiate what they're about to see. It's a tool you can use to more quickly transition into something a little different than the "typical" close-up magic trick.

And that tool is the RAT. Every repertoire should have a RAT. A RAT is a:

Really
Average
Trick

My current RAT is Cameron Francis's Deceit Treat. 

This is about the most average effect in magic. I don't mean that as an insult. That means half of all magic is worse than this. The trick is fine. It's just not the sort of thing that will grab their attention by being super visual, or capture their imagination with an intriguing premise. It's a fooling but bland trick. The number of five star reviews for it on Penguin is... odd. This should not be a 5-star trick in your repertoire. Again, I'm not saying it's a bad trick. It's not a bad trick. It's just not a great trick either. 

But why bother performing an average trick? The purpose is to establish a baseline that we can then use as the "standard" that future effects differ from. I use this sort of thing when I'm hanging out with someone for a day or a weekend and it's not feasible to use the full induction process as outlined in the post mentioned in the original email.

So I will perform the RAT for someone in a very straightforward style. Average thru-and-thru. Now we see how they respond. If they're really into it, then great, I can transition to stronger stuff and get even better reactions that. If they're not into it then I can use that reaction and build on it.

Let's say I get the sense they're not that impressed. They say, "Oh, yup, that's my card. Neat." I can join in with that sentiment. "Eh... yeah. I guess it's not so great. I'm a little rusty. I haven't been practicing this sort of thing much." And then I go on to explain why I haven't been working on that type of trick much. 

"I've actually been spending a lot of time working a trick that only happens in your mind."

"I actually found this old book my aunt kept that outlined these weird rituals, and that type of thing is much more interesting to me these days than these sorts of tricks."

"I'm not really into the sleight-of-hand type stuff as much anymore. I've been intrigued by some things on the fringes of science"

Now I transition into some other style of effect and I'm using their reaction from the first trick to justify showing them the second.

But you still might be saying, "Why bother showing them an average trick first? Just go into what you feel is the better trick." 

Here's why:

1. A lot of my "better tricks" require a certain level of faith/commitment/investment from the audience. Leading off with that can feel awkward for people. But if you start with a trick that doesn't require much from them, and establish that you know what you're doing on some level, you can ask for more with trick #2. It's like if I had some weird sexual fetish. First I'd just bang you the normal way, so you can get comfortable with me. Then I'd get all freaky on you.

2. The contrast between the standard trick and some of the more unusual presentation styles I enjoy is something I want to highlight. But you have to keep in mind that most people have never seen competent sleight of hand magic in real life. They don't really have a grasp of magic done the "traditional" way, so they're not going to be able to appreciate what's interesting about a deviation from the norm. It would be like if you had never had pizza before and your first introduction to it was some bizarre variation with a white sauce and grilled asparagus. You might enjoy it, but you wouldn't really grasp how this was different from the standard. But if you can demonstrate something with a typical trick, then the differences inherent in the next trick will be magnified

Again, I don't subject people I perform for regularly to average tricks. If they're people I will be in touch with long-term, then I use the slow burn method described in the other post. This is something I use with the people who pass through my life for a brief period. The Really Average Trick establishes a standard that I can build off of or transition away from in a way that feels natural, rather than just hitting someone new over the head with something crazy and unexpected.

Coming Tomorrow Night

It's back to school time, which mean it's time for the professor.

And here is our JAMM Muse for September, Gibson.

I don't care what my dumb parents said. Dai, had the right idea. Smoking is cool!

Gibson said, "Oh, I know a trick!". What a surprise when it turned out to be Any Man Behind Any Curtain from the JAMM #5.

And somehow she performed it on a rotary phone! She's unbelievable.

It took two packs of bubble gum cigarettes before finding a couple with some good powdered sugar smoke puffs. Step it up bubble gum cigarette manufacturers! Take pride in your work. Don't think I won't swoop in and take over the bubble gum cigarette industry. I'll do it! That's an $1800 a year business worldwide!

The JAMM #8 is coming to your email late tomorrow night, NYC time. If you place your subscription before then, it will start with this issue (otherwise it will start with the October issue).