Dustings of Woofle #14

A few people have written to ask what I think about the TimeLine app from Patrick Kun and Marc Kerstein.

The app is pretty simple in concept. The spectator names a number between 1 and 10. You show the time on your phone. Then you make the time “rewind” by the number of minutes they named.

I’ve played around with the app a bit. I doubt I’ll have any particularly unique insights into how you might use it. It’s pretty straight-forward. You’re going to use it in the context of a trick where you apparently manipulate time in some way. On its own, I don’t think it’s terribly convincing. Like if you said, “Look, the time on my phone is going backwarrds!” They’re probably going to think it’s an app or some other sort of manipulation of your phone’s clock and not that you’re Donnie Darko or some shit. But as an adjunct moment in a larger trick, I think it’s actually stronger than I anticipated it would be.

Here are some quick thoughts:

1. Here’s my general presentation for it. I offer to show someone a trick. I tear up a card (or straw wrapper, napkin, etc.) “Attempt” to restore it. Nothing happens. “Hmm… There’s supposed to be a way to manipulate the energy and weave the pieces back together. I thought I had it figured out.” I go on with the conversation. I pick up the pieces and sort of absentmindedly fiddle with them. Set them down, pick them up again. The moment of the trick has passed but I act just mildly distracted by the card. As if 5% of my brain is thinking, “Why didn’t that work?” At some point I say, “Oh, there’s another way to restore the card, but it’s kind of cheating. About how many minutes ago did I tear this card? Six? Okay. So it’s 9:56 now. So if I make time go back to 9:50… then the card will be complete again.” I make time go back. I unfold the “pieces” to find the card restored. Of course I just switched the pieces for the restored card at some point while I was messing around with them. Because of the ultra-casualness of the presentation, there’s no heat on a potential switch because it occurs well past the time the trick was apparently happening.

“About how many minutes ago,” is how I get them to name a number of minutes. Not, “Name a number between 1 and 10.” It’s a little thing, but the first way sounds like, “I’m going to make time go back to a specific moment… when was that moment?” The second way sounds like, “I’m going to make the number on my phone change by the number you said.” I want the sense to be that I’m changing the moment, not that I’m changing digits on a phone.

Then I finish by saying something like, “But that’s not really restoring the card. That’s just manipulating time. So it’s kind of fake.” Kind of fake? What does that mean? Who knows. It’s just fun to “confess” to not actually doing something impossible by claiming you did some other impossible thing.

2. You may want to not draw attention to the changing time. I’ve only done it this way once but it got a really strong reaction. “Okay, so it’s 8:18 now. We’re going to back in time 7 minutes.” I closed my eyes and put my hands to my temples. After a few moments I heard her say, “What the fuck,” and I knew she had noticed the time ticking backwards. If she hadn’t that’s fine. I just would have pointed out the time myself when I opened my eyes. It’s cooler if they see the time click back, but taking the chance to let them “discover” that on their own, rather than you pointing it out, is a small risk worth taking.

3. You can also make time jump forward. So you could use the app with the In Search of Lost Time presentation mentioned in the previous post. With that presentation it would be used in more of a “convincer” capacity. They wouldn’t see the time move. You’d just tap your phone to see the time, “Okay, it’s 4:10 now. We’re going to do about a 5 minute hypnotic induction if that’s okay.” 15 seconds later they are “awoken” from the “trance.”

“How was that? Okay?” You check the time. It’s 4:17. “Okay, we went for seven minutes which was a little longer than I’d intended. You were in pretty deep and it was harder to bring you out than I anticipated. But if you’re feeling fine, we can proceed.”

4. If you want to use the app to almost convincingly manipulate time, without tying it to any other effect, here’s is how you do it. (You’re not going to like this, but it will work.) Have your wingman install the app on his/her phone. You’re having a conversation amongst a small group. You mention your time traveling abilities. “I can’t go back to the dinosaurs or visit the distant future or anything. But I can go back a few minutes.” You ask someone how many minutes back they want to go back. They name a number. You ask your secret wingman, “What time is it now?” He taps his phone to see the time. “5:42.” Now without touching anything you manipulate the time on his phone backwards the exact number of minutes named. In casual situations, that will mess with people’s minds.

If you’re at a bar or a cafe and you really want to F with people, have a second wingman who is not part of your group spill a drink or shout a distinctive phrase a couple minutes before you go back in time. Then have him do it again a little while after you’ve supposedly time travelled.

---

I’ve called Genii magazine the best deal in magic. Sadly, I am now forced to call for a boycott of Genii Magazine.

Tom Gagnon is clearly suffering from the late stages of dementia and has forgotten how to play pool or cards (likely both).

And how does Genii honor this man who has been in magic for decades? By advertising his secret shame on the cover of their most recent issue. “Gee, isn’t it funny to capture the deterioration of a man’s mind and use it to sell magazines?” No. Sorry. That’s not “funny,” you sick, twisted monsters.

If you’re looking for a new magic periodical to replace your Genii subscription, I can heartily recommend Charles Hagen’s, The Boy Magician: The Boys Own Journal On Magic.

Sorry, ladies. Pack up your vaginas and hit the bricks. Boys only.

---

Vanishing Inc. sent me a press release in regards to a new initiative they’ve launched, and it’s a chance for you cheap slobs to get some free magic and do a little good in the world.

Joshua Jay has previously released a trick with a presentation suggesting that it was something he came up with to perform for a blind person.

Now the company he co-founded is working on a service for deaf magicians.

This is part of Josh’s commitment to assist people with impairments. According to Josh, “I find the fewer senses a person has, the more palatable they find me. In fact, if you’re completely comatose, there’s a good chance I’m your favorite magician.”

Fair enough.

Vanishing Inc. has started a program to caption their magic video offerings for the benefit of deaf magicians.

This is a good thing. I’ve often thought, “Gee… if only there was some way for deaf people to learn magic.”

Sure, books might have all the necessary information needed to learn magic, but how is a deaf magician supposed to experience the self-conscious stammering, needless tangents, and dull charmlessness of a magician speaking extemporaneously on an instant download? Well, Vanishing Inc is solving this problem, but they need your help to do so.

In all seriousness, this seems like a worthwhile enterprise. For anyone who wants to help out, here’s how you can get involved and get some free magic in the process…

[From the press release:]

Find any video in the Vanishing Inc. Exclusives collection that is not labeled with a “subtitled” banner

• Send your choice(s) to the Vanishing Inc. team through their contact page

• Once approved, the DVD or download will be sent to you along with instructions on how to create subtitles

• After the captioning is complete, the magic effect is yours to keep forever

Each project is conducted on an ad hoc basis with no commitment required. Those interested can complete as many as they’d like but are limited to one open project at a time. Longer videos can be split among a team, with every participant gaining permanent access to the effect. However, all team members must be identified in the initial submission. 

Mailbag #11

Question regarding “In Search of Lost Time.” You briefly mention this presentation could be used to perform color changing knives. I’ve always loved them and own the nice set by Dan and Dave but always felt a little too self conscious about bringing them out. I have a few ideas on how to use your suggestion but was wondering if you might elaborate on how you’d apply it, if you’re so inclined. —AG

Sure. In Search of Lost Time is a presentation that can be applied to 100s of tricks. It’s not just an Invisible Deck presentation as I wrote it up. I will explain how you would do it with the original stooge version and then you can extrapolate and figure out the other variations.

You have your stooge and your spectator.

You “hypnotize” the stooge. In your hypnosis you say that when you say a certain word he will perceive that the black knife has changed to white.

You wake him from his hypnosis and invoke the word that will cause him to—supposedly—see the knife as a different color. He pretends he’s really seeing it. But in reality nothing has changed. To your actual spectator it should seem as if he has been hypnotized to see the knife a different.

Now you ask her if she would like to try. You count her down: 3, 2, 1. Then you immediately count up: 2, 3. You are now going to imply that she’s been “under” for some period of time.

“How do you feel? Okay? A little groggy? You were a good subject.” Etc.

“Katy, what color is this knife?” She says black.

“Okay, but now if I say the word sailboat… now what color is the knife?”

You say a random word. The implication is that this is the word you implanted in her mind during the hypnosis which she has no recollection of. But as you say this out of place word, the knife she’s looking at changes from black to white.

You can then remove the hypnotic suggestion and the knife goes back to its original color. After a switch, you set the knife down.

The other non-stooge versions would be accomplished along similar lines as indicated in the original post.

---

[Regarding the Theory of Mind post.]

I wonder if a funny closing line would be that they passed the Autism test but failed the Alzheimer's test?

The idea being that their short term memory is totally screwed up. —JM

Yup, that's good. (Although it may hit a little too close to home for some people.)

---

Your post today reminded me of an effect I did recently when someone asked me what kind of magic I do.

"I'm just starting to be able to make little things disappear" I said. "Find me a tiny rock" I said.

Meanwhile, I was on the ground "looking" for a good tiny rock, but secretly picking up a piece of clear broken glass I saw on the ground.

When they found one that was the right size and shape (approximate to the shard of glass), I asked them to put it on the palm of my hand, closed it and said "Invisigo" I opened my hand, saw the "transparent rock" and threw it to the ground apologizing for my not-quite ready effect. —SR

I like it. I would approach it a little differently. I'd make the rock "vanish" and open my hand with the glass in it, but make no comment on it. The subtext here is I want it to seem like I'm just hoping they don't see the glass. As if the “method” of the trick is to turn the rock to glass and then pray they don’t notice it.

What I want is for them to briefly think, "Hey, he didn't make the rock vanish. He just made it clear in hopes I wouldn't see it in his hand!" Before they realize that too is impossible.

---

The following isn’t a question, so it doesn’t require a response. But it was one of my favorite emails recently.

I was rewatching Matilda and there's a part at the end where Lavender is holding on to a bar and Matilda tells her to let go and floats her to the ground. When she reaches the ground she says, "I didn't know I could do that." Matilda responds, "No, it was I who neurolinguistically programmed you to reach your potential."

No wait, she said, "Pretty good, huh?"

I think it really captures your philosophy well in ten seconds. —CDB

A Second Introduction to the Law of First Introduction

I wanted to take a second look at this topic because I think I’ve found a better way to frame the discussion.

The Law of First Introduction says that the manner in which an interaction is started will determine the limits of the impact of that interaction.

For example, if I introduce it by saying, “I’ve been thinking about if true love really exists.” The potential impact of that entire interaction (including a trick) could be a 10 out of 10 because, for many people, that’s about as profound a subject as there is.

But, if I introduce the interaction by saying, “Want to see a trick? Okay, shuffle these cards. Now, I’ve been thinking lately if true love really exists.” The spectator has already capped the impact of that experience at, say, a 5 out of 10. Or whatever their personal limitations for a magic trick might be.

---

I don’t say a 5 out of 10 is not to denigrate magic.

Let’s look at the 1-10 Potential Impact scale that I’m imagining.

Everyday experiences are going to be at the low end of the scale.

• Brushing your teeth might be a 1

• An average day at work might be a 2

• A typical nice weeknight dinner with the family might be a 4

Experiences of artistic expressions are going to be in the mid-range depending on how well-crafted they are and how much you enjoy them.

• A dull book might be a 3

• A really funny TV show might be a 5

• A great movie might be a 7

And then unique, personal experiences are going to be at the high end.

• An incredible meal might be a 7

• A mind-blowing sexual experience might be an 8

• An all-night intense conversation might be a 9

• A once-in-a-lifetime vacation might be a 10.

Now, just to get us on the same page, I’m quantifying something here which should be common sense. Everyday experiences are not going to have a huge impact on your life. And unique, personal experiences have the potential to be incredibly significant. Artistic experiences may have varying levels of impact but they’ll generally be in the mid-range. Even the worst ones won’t be as meaningless as brushing your teeth. But it’s hard for even the best ones to crack the high end of the scale because you’re a layer removed from the experience. You’re watching a story being told rather than taking part in a story.

---

Now, let’s look at some “First Introduction” variants.

If you start with, “Can I show you a trick?” then you’ve put your spectator firmly in the “artistic expression” range. And if they don’t have a great opinion of magic, you’ve put them in the “trivial diversion” range of that spectrum, reserved for things like juggling and ventriloquism and jokes and bar bets. That range might max out at an impact of 4 on a scale of 1-10. You may be able to capitalize on those lowered expectations, but they may just as well fence you in.

If you start with, “Want to see something weird?” or something vague like that, then you’re not constrained by their expectations. They won’t start off thinking, “This is just a magic trick.” Perhaps they may come back around to that, which is fine. But it may be something that seems more unusual and less categorizable. By not saying exactly what it is, you’re raising your potential impact ceiling.

If you start with, “I’ve been thinking about [any potentially interesting subject]” and you’re with someone you can have an engaging discussion with, then that interaction is already at a 6. A genuinely thought-provoking conversation, whether it’s two minutes or two hours, is by definition going to be on the high end of the impact scale. Now your floor for the full interaction is where your ceiling was when it was framed solely as “a trick.”

Now, let’s say we’re having an interaction that’s at an 8 on the impact scale. What makes this an “8 rating” experience is the richness of the interaction. You may look back on the conversation and remember a joke, an idea, a personal confession, a quote, and so on. Any of these things in isolation might not be that impactful, but as a whole it becomes meaningful. And a trick can just be another part of the interaction that adds to that richness. “Oh, I remember what got me thinking of this in the first place. I want to try something with you I was reading about.” And assuming it’s a good trick, it becomes another positive element in the interaction. But the interaction also colors the trick. The trick in isolation might be a Level 5 on the impact rating. But as part of Level 8 interaction, it will be given even more weight and meaning by the other people involved.

---

The trick elevates the interaction and the interaction elevates the trick.

---

It’s bad form to make an entire paragraph bold. But I think it’s important because I think this is something magicians get backwards. They do the exact opposite of what I’m suggesting here and it has the exact opposite effect. Instead of focusing on an interaction based on some interesting concept and then introducing a trick at some point, they focus on the trick and then try and add an interesting concept within it. This only ends up weakening the trick and the concept.

---

You’re too close to magic to look at it objectively. Let’s take it out of the world of magic. Let’s say I painted pictures on dog bowls and sold them on Etsy for a living.

One day you come over and I ask if you want to see me paint a dog bowl. So you watch as I do it and I say, “The interesting thing about this design is that I think it proves that Jesus Christ is the divine son of God.” You’d laugh. I would have minimized the subject by putting it in the context of something trivial (painted dog food bowls). And I would have even minimized my dog food bowls by suggesting they weren’t worthy of your attention unless I clumsily shoehorned Jesus Christ into the equation.

If I had a dog food bowl that proved Jesus Christ’s divinity. I wouldn’t introduce it by saying, “Hey, do you want to see a dog food bowl?” I’d say, “Oh my gosh, I’ve found proof of Christ’s divinity!”

Now, instead, imagine we’re having an intense conversation about religion. At some point I say, “You know what sent me on this religion kick recently? It’s going to sound crazy. But it was this dog bowl I painted. It really opened my mind about stuff.”

You’d think, Shit! I gotta see that dog bowl!

The potential impact of that dog bowl would be colored by the interaction that preceded. Even if I underplay the dog bowl as I introduce it (“I realize this is stupid but…,”) it still is bathed in the glow of the interaction. And if the dog bowl is interesting in any way, it becomes this other cool thing adding to the interaction.

Dog bowl elevates interaction, interaction elevates dog bowl.

---

When you say, “Hey do you want to see a trick? Okay, shuffle these. Do you believe in fate?” The audience knows this isn’t about “fate” in any consequential way. Because if it was you would have led with fate.

It’s a question of context. Am I talking to you about fate inside the relatively minor context of a magic trick? Or am I showing you a magic trick, inside the much broader context of a discussion of fate?

---

What I’m Not Saying

This is not meant to be prescriptive regarding how you should perform all your tricks. The vast majority of the tricks I perform start with me saying, “Hey, do you want to see a trick I’m working on?”

The point I’m trying to make is in the situations where you want to put your trick in the context of a grander idea, you need to establish that context first. If not, you sort of waste that concept. Instead of seeming like an integral part of the experience, it feels like set dressing. It’s “just” presentation or patter.

I’m also not saying you need to invest 45 minutes in a long interaction before going into a trick to take advantage of the Law of First Introduction. A big build-up can be very powerful for the amateur magician. But that’s not what I’m getting at here. This is just about what you bring up first.

In it’s most distilled form, I’m saying that this:

“Hey, I’ve got a trick to show you. Here, examine these half dollars. Do you believe a person can haunt an object after they die?”

is not as strong as this

“This is going to be a weird question but, do you believe in ghosts? Do you think they could haunt an object? Yeah, I don’t know. It’s just something that’s been on my mind because of this trick I’ve been working on.“

---

After my initial post on this subject I got an email that asked:

Is there any concern that once the trick is performed, it could could be seen to have cheapened the conversation? Say they think "hey hang on, this was all just a ruse to show me he could float a matchstick on that card, I opened my heart!!!".

If so, that seems to suggest that we make sure we know when to abandon heading toward a trick and to just go with the conversation instead, the interaction being more important than the trick.

Also if we are possibly going to ditch the magic trick do we have an obligation to make the initial conversation as true as possible? —JA

I’ll work backwards. There’s no reason not to make the initial conversation as true as possible. It’s not “patter” at this point. It’s a real conversation. When the trick comes you want it to feel like an afterthought, so you don’t have to set it up too much at this stage.

And yes, sometimes you may decide to drop the trick you had planned if the interaction goes a completely different direction. But that doesn’t happen too often.

“Is there any concern that once the trick is performed, it could could be seen to have cheapened the conversation?”

Done properly, this isn’t a concern.

Here’s how it plays out.

First, I have a genuine interaction about something. It might be 30 seconds or 3 hours. Then, once that interaction reaches a lull or a stopping point I say something like:

“Oh, actually, this would be a good time to show you something. It’s along the same lines of what we’ve been talking about.”

or

“I guess this has been on my mind recently because of this thing I’m working on.”

or

“That thing you said reminded me of something I want to show you.”

This is the only part of all of this that is deceptive really. I’m pretending as if I hadn’t had this trick in the back of my mind from the start. Do I feel guilty about this? Not at all.

If I performed magic in a style that was self-serving—if it was designed to make me look smart, cool, or powerful—then I might feel like a bit of a schmuck for pretending to stumble upon the idea of showing them a trick. But I don’t perform in that way. I want the trick to feel spontaneous because that’s better/more interesting for the spectator.

This is a luxury that an audience-centric style permits. Even if they think, “Hey, I bet he knew all along he’d show me this trick,” it doesn’t matter all that much. If the trick feels like it’s about the spectator’s experience and not the magician’s ego, it’s hard for them to get too worked up about something that was genuinely for their benefit. The initial conversation should still feel legitimate because it was legitimate. And then a strong, trick to follow shouldn’t ever feel too manipulative. If they have an issue with it, it means your trick is coming off as self-serving somehow. Otherwise it would be like them complaining, “Hey! You only cooked me that great dinner so you could make me that delicious dessert!”

Tweak-End: Paul Harris' Son of Stunner

If, as discussed in the previous post, Paul Harris’ magic is “mental rape to the highest order,” the ideas discussed in this post may elevate this particular effect to a “mental gang rape” which I’m guessing is even a finer “compliment.”

From the True Astonishments Box Set, Paul Harris’ Son of Stunner is really a wonder of construction. You have three big moments: a prediction, a Triumph effect, and a color changing deck and it’s really just one technique used that accomplishes all of this.

If you’re unfamiliar with the trick, here it is performed by Bro Gilbert.

I performed this for a while after the release of True Astonishments. The reactions I got were good, but I felt they should have been better.

The prediction was well received, but the Triumph and color change phases weren’t as strong. And certainly not as strong as those effects had they been performed on their own.

And I realized that while the construction of the trick was clever methodologically, it could be better in performance.

In the True Astonishments DVD, Paul and/or Bro Gilbert kind of acknowledge this, making the point that the prediction effect often overshadows the Triumph that follows it. And they’re 100% right. The prediction takes people’s focus so much off the deck that when the cards right themselves, then change color, it’s easy for them to think maybe you switched the deck or did something while they were distracted by the first part of the trick. (Watch the demo video at 3:38 and you’ll see the woman going on about the prediction part of the effect. This is before the other two phases. Obviously no one is paying very keen attention to the deck at that moment.)

This is compounded by the fact that the patter Bro uses (and I used at the time) is that he did the switch the deck. The problem with that presentation is that it would actually be quite possible to switch the deck for real while the audience is distracted with the first part of the effect. And I think this is clear to laypeople as well. So the reaction I was getting was a “wow” for the prediction, followed by and “oh, neat” for the two latter phases. If they genuinely believe it’s possible you switched the deck, then obviously the fact that it’s a different color or the cards have been reoriented isn’t that impressive. And beyond that, the impact of the prediction can diminish because they might think, “Oh, maybe in the first deck, all the face-down cards were the 10 of Spades.” (Or whatever the prediction card was.)

My friend, AC, is a big fan of this effect and has come up with some tweaks to the presentation that I think account for these issues and strengthen the effect and he’s allowed me to share them with you.

A Celebration of Specialness

This first presentation changes the order of the phases, putting the Triumph first.

The revelation in a Triumph effect hits hardest the closer it comes to the audience seeing the deck (apparently) mixed up. In the original SOS, that revelation comes after the prediction, and is weakened because of that time delay. Here it happens immediately.

Here’s how my friend perform is.

He writes a prediction then gives it to the spectator to hold. He talks about one of the cards in the deck being “special.” What does this mean exactly? He doesn’t say. He shuffles the deck face-up into face-down. Then he says, “The special card is one of the face-down cards. Try to stop at the one that feels special. It won’t look different. It will look just like all the others, so you’ll just have to go by feel.” This reinforces that all the backs look the same.

The spectator stops him and he sets that card face-down right in front of them.

“Do you know why it’s special,” he asks. They say no, and he says, “because it’s the only face-down card.” Then he does a big wide ribbon spread of the face-up deck.

Now he brings up the prediction. “What also makes it special is that it’s the one card I wrote down before we even started.” He turns over the card and the spectator opens the prediction. Boom. Second big moment.

Then he turns very corny and says softly, “But you know…it’s not the only special thing here. You’re special. I’m special. That lamp is special. And each and every one of these cards is special. They’re all unique in their own way.” And with that he starts turning over the cards one at a time, and then en masse, to show they all have different backs (Joshua Jay’s Prism Deck).

The triumph portion hits harder than the original because it’s the first moment of magic, and it’s not following a stronger moment. So it’s not anti-climactic. And because it happens right after they see the deck mixed face-up and face-down.

The color change is stronger as well because they have no reasonable explanation for how it happened. You’re not talking about deck switches, and that won’t occur to spectators either because the deck is spread wide across the table making it impossible to switch.

The presentation is more fun as well. Find the “special” card. And then it becomes like a cheesy commercial from the ad council about how everyone is special and unique in their own way. It’s not intended to be a deep or meaningful presentation, but it’s a cohesive one. The original presentation is kind of a mish-mash of ideas. “I predicted the card. And the cards are marked. And also I switched the deck.” Huh? It doesn’t make a whole ton of sense. Here the consistent thematic presentation of “specialness” justifies doing them all together.

The Ackerman Home Invasion

This is a presentation I worked on with AC. It follows the same structure as the original trick: Prediction. Triumph. Color Change. But here we’re going to take some steps to make “he switched the deck” seem to be a truly fantastic explanation, rather than a rational one.

The name is a nod to a past presentation I wrote up here that mined similar territory.

You write the prediction on a piece of paper and have someone put it in their pocket.

You go through the trick up until the point the selection is made. You turn over their selection and note what it is. Then you place it at the back of the deck, oriented with the rest of the cards and immediately hand the deck to the spectator to hold.

You say, “Just a second,” and grab the table edge and grimace like you’re exerting a lot of effort.

“Ok,” you say. “I think that worked. Can I see the prediction I made?”

The prediction is removed and opened and you show that you accurately predicted the card they’d stop at.

“Do you want to know how that’s done?” you ask. “Simple. I didn’t actually write anything on this paper before I gave it to you. Then… after you selected the card, I froze time. Then, while everything in the world was paused, except for me, I went in your pocket removed the blank paper, wrote the prediction, and put it back in your pocket.

“You don’t believe me. I knew you wouldn’t believe me. That’s why, while time was frozen, I also fixed the deck so every card faces the same way.”

You take the deck from them and spread it face up.

“You’re still skeptical. Wow. Why do I even bother teaching you something if you’re not going to believe me. Well, I knew you’d be like this, so I did one other thing to prove I stopped time.” You pick up the random card on the end of the face-up spread. “You see this 3 of Diamonds? I actually went next door and grabbed a 3 of Diamonds from a deck in their house and swapped it with the one in the deck you were holding.”

You turn the single card over to show a different back.

Obviously this one card with a different back doesn’t feel like it’s proof of much of anything.

You pick up the next card, “And this 4 of Spades? I got this from the house on the other side. And this 8 of Diamonds from across the street.” You turn over the cards to reveal completely different back designs.

“In fact, I went to 52 different houses in the neighborhood and grabbed a single card from whatever deck they happened to have, making an entirely new deck of random cards,” you say as you turn over all the cards to show 52 different backs.

The benefits of this variation are:

• Handing the deck to the person directly following the selection greatly strengthens the Triumph and the color change phases as the deck is clearly out of your hands even when their attention is diverted to the prediction.

• The second and third phases are connected presentationally to the first. It’s not just a random mashing together of effects based on method.

• I particularly like the idea of a rainbow deck being composed of a card stolen from 52 houses in the neighborhood while time was paused.

As mentioned, Son of Stunner can be found in the True Astonishments set or as an individual download. Use promo code JERX52 and you’ll save 20% and help support the site. Just kidding. You ain’t saving shit, and nobody is giving me any kickback for damn sure. But it’s a trick worth knowing so track it down if you don’t already own it.

[Edit: It seems that promo code actually works now. Do I have the power to manifest Vanishing Inc promo codes into existence? If I’d known that I would have conjured up a larger savings on a product that most everyone reading this didn’t already own. Hmmm… Well… let’s see what happens. Did you know you can get Joshua Jay’s Balance buy one get one free? Just use promo code: WHATAMIGOINGTODOWITHTWOOFTHEESE2019 ]

Dustings of Woofle #13

So imagine this. I have a bag and in the bag are 100 slips of paper. On each piece of paper is a different animal. You pull out a slip of paper and it says, “Tiger.” I reveal my prediction and it reads, “Tiger.”

Okay, next scenario. There are 100 animal names on a list in front of you. I ask you to name any animal you see there. You say, “Tiger.” I open my prediction and it reads, “Tiger.”

Which is stronger?

I think most of us would agree that the second version is stronger, where the spectator is making a free (open) choice rather than the first one where the spectator is making a random (blind) selection.

Now let’s change the second scenario. Now they’re making a free choice between just two animals. Is that still more impressive than the random selection of 1 in 100 animals? Probably not.

So let’s start with that premise…

1 in 100 free choice vs 1 in 100 random selection
Free choice is more impressive.

1 in 2 free choice vs 1 in 100 random selection
Random selection is more impressive.

The question is, when do these cross over? How many objects need to be in play before the free choice is as impressive as the random selection? 50? 25? Even less?

We’ve been focus group testing this in multiple sessions all year and the results will be in the October X-Communication newsletter.

By looking at the results of the testing we at least have a starting point in understanding a number of things:

1. To what extent do spectator’s value a free choice over a blind choice/random selection? (This can give you some sense on what to focus on when creating an effect.)

2. What is the point of diminishing returns when it comes to potential choices in a free selection? I think we all understand that a 1 in 50 prediction is significantly stronger than a 1 in 2 prediction. But it’s also probably fair to say that a 1 in a million selection is not quantifiably more impossible to lay people than a 1 in 1000 free selection. So how many objects have to be in play before the impossibility of an effect starts to level off?

3. How much more impossible does an effect with a free selection seem if you’re making the selection vs. someone else?

Just some questions to consider for now. The full write-up will come in the next newsletter.

---

I’m positive I mentioned this before, but it might have been in a draft post that ended up not being published, because I can’t find it anywhere. The consulting service experiment that I launched about a month ago is ending in October which is when I will have processed all the current orders. (So no new ones after this point.)

The reason is that it was just too time consuming. My theory, that I could squeeze in thinking about people’s questions/projects in a short period of time, once a day for a week, didn’t end up working well. Either I’d hit upon an interesting idea which I’d then spend a bunch of time working on, or I wouldn’t hit on a good idea, so I’d spend more time on the project in hopes that I would. So what was supposed to be a cumulative two hours of time ended up being much more.

I will continue on with the consulting for those who already have a session booked. But after that I’m taking my ideas, putting them in a bag, and going home.

---

Since this post appeared I’ve received a few emails from people saying that they’ve been spotting tipped over traffic cones around where they live.

No, this is not a coordinated effort from me. And no, I don’t believe it’s some sort of sign. I think it’s just the case that traffic cones get knocked over pretty regularly and you never had any reason to pay attention to that fact before reading that post.

But now it’s infected your mind and you won’t be able to see one without thinking of this site. You can consider it me saying hello. Give it a wave when you see one.

Your wife: “Honey, why did you wave at that knocked over traffic cone.”

You: “Because it’s my magic blogging friend!”

She’s like…

And maybe you’ll get committed. In fact, if all of us do that, we might be locked up together in a psychiatric ward to study our mass delusion.

This is my convoluted way of organizing the first Jerx Magic Convention.

---

I found this in Paul Harris’ book, A Close Up Kinda Guy. It’s an oddly intense description of what most people would consider a fairly whimsical style of magic.

The fuck?

I wish I could have been there when they were crafting this charming description.

“Can I say Paul Harris’ magic is a real mindfuck?”

“No.”

“Why not? Because it uses the F-word?”

“No. Because it suggests it’s consensual.”

“Oh, good point. How about I call it ‘mental rape’?”

“Bleh. Too bland. Then people will think it’s just ordinary, everyday mental rape type stuff.”

“Mental rape to the highest power?”

“Bingo! Now that’s the exact perfect phrasing we should use to start off Paul’s new book!”

---

The Sally Andy Trick

Joe Mckay sent me an email that mentioned a test that is done to assess a child’s “Theory of Mind.” That is, their ability to understand that other people have a perspective that is different than their own.

Here is a description of the test…

---

I think it’s interesting that a test that’s so simple might be able to tell us something so profound about what is or isn’t going on in someone’s head.

I thought there might be some sort of interesting premise for a trick to be found in this test. And, if so, I assumed that trick would have a psychological aspect to it. A trick that would perhaps enlighten and educate the audience in regards to their abilities of perception.

But then after ruminating on the idea for a week or so I thought, “Oh. Actually, that would be a funny presentation for the vanishing coke bottle.”

I didn’t get a chance to try it out for a while because I don’t have a vanishing bottle of any type, but this weekend I was visiting a friend who des and I got to try it out for someone.

You need two small paper bags, a marker, a vanishing bottle, and a real bottle that looks close enough to the gimmick.

I was showing the trick to my friend’s brother, Rich. I mentioned the Sally Anne test but not by name. I just asked him if he remembered taking that test in school that they use to assess your “theory of mind.” Of course, he didn’t, because I don’t think this is actually a common thing. So I went on to describe the test, but not too clearly. This gave me an excuse to get some props and give him a proper demonstration.

I went to the other room and grabbed everything. The vanishing Coke bottle was compressed in one of the folded bags. I set the real Coke bottle on the table. I wrote Sally on the bag with the gimmick in it, and Anne on the other bag. Unfolded and opened both and set them on the table.

I grabbed a couple stuffed animals from his daughter’s room to represent Sally and Anne.

I put the real bottle in Sally’s bag (next to the gimmick). I then told the “story” of the test. Sally leaves (I knock her off the table). Anne goes over and steals the Coke from Sally’s bag and puts it in her own (the gimmick). Sally returns (I pick her up and waddle her along the table).

“Where will Sally look for the Coke?” I asked.

“In her own bag,” Rich said.

“Right. Exactly. So you passed the Sally Anne test. And that shows you have a Theory of Mind. But in actuality, where is the Coke?”

“In Anne’s bag,” he said.

“Oh, noooooo,” I said, with over-the-top fake concern. “Oh, that’s too bad.”

He gave me a confused look.

“I’m so sorry. But you failed the Andy Test.”

“Oh yeah? And what’s that test?” he asked.

“That’s the test I give to see if you’re a fucking braindead idiot,” I said, while tapping my finger repeatedly against my temple.

I pulled the bottle out of Sally’s bag and crumpled up Anne’s.

---

I might not use that exact closing line if I was performing for a stranger, but it’s fine when performing for friends. Unless your friends suck and get all worked up over stupid shit. No, you don’t want to come off as a prick when you do magic. But if your asshole-ness is way over the top, then it loops around again and it just becomes funny, not legitimately mean or condescending.

Dear Jerxy: The Google Conundrum

Dear Jerxy: I was with a group in Vegas last week and a magician performed Michel Huot’s Sock trick for us. The trick was a success by any standard and got a great reaction, but after he left, two people in my group googled socks magic trick and there in the first link was where you could buy the product. (At least it wasn’t an explanation on youtube…yet).

In today’s post you said that a “benign mystery” is as positive thing in people’s life. How do you reconcile that with the idea that more and more people are trying to destroy the mystery by searching for explanations online?

Signed,
Searching for Answers About Searching for Answers in SeaTac

Dear Searching: Ok. A couple things here. Magicians, admittedly, had a nice system until about the mid-90s. Secrets were fairly well hidden. Anyone with an interest in magic and a library card could find out the fundamentals of the art, but it took some work to get to the “good stuff.” It was a simpler time. Magicians would write strongly worded letters to the editor in Genii magazine if Mac King taught a magic trick going into the commercial break on a TV special. It was quaint. I can only hope, for their sake, those people died before a time—just 15 years later—when every layperson would have the secret to every magic trick in their pocket.

It’s a completely different world now in magic. That’s easy to forget because everything has changed in that time. Not just magic.

I grew up in the early 90s, jacking off to Redbook magazine because that’s what was in the house. Or searching the scrambled porn channel in hopes of finding a stray titty. Kids today don’t even know what the concept of “scrambled” porn is. They can see any type of porn, any time of day, whenever they want.

We have easy access to everything now. It feels good. But we’re like the guy in the Twilight Zone who thinks having everything he wants is heaven, until he realizes he’s actually in “the other place.”

Okay, I’m working my way around to your question. I just want us firmly rooted in the world we live in. There are those people who say, “If someone tries to figure out your trick it’s because you’re not good/entertaining enough,” or some horsehshit like that. That’s ridiculous. If people in the 1960s had a book in their pocket with all of magic’s secrets in it, they would watch Dai Vernon, they’d ooh and ahh, then they’d think, “I can’t wait to look that up in my book!” This is human nature.

So you show someone a trick and then they google it. This seems to suggest they don’t want to be fooled or they aren’t looking for the feeling of long-term mystery. If so, what’s the point of performing for people?

I’m going to help you reframe this.

There are a couple parts to this…

Part One

The first thing to recognize is that the feeling of mystery is, at first, uncomfortable for people. For someone seeing a trick that offers no Easy Answers, their initial reaction is going to be to try and “figure it out” no matter how charming and delightful you, the trick, and the presentation may be.

What I’ve found is some people don’t realize they want “mystery” until they’ve experienced it. They think the game is: He shows me a trick and I do whatever I can to come up with an explanation for how the trick was done. It’s only once they experience something that feels “truly impossible” that they understand the positives of that.

I have a number of people in my life now who will come to me asking to see a trick and just take the whole thing in like they’re taking a drug. Like they’re mainlining mystery. But they didn’t start off that way. They were just as skeptical and stand-offish about being taken in with a trick as your average audience member. With repeated exposure to strong magic, they saw the benefit of just giving themselves over to the experience and not fighting it. The biggest reason for that is because I became better at making it clear that it was a safe environment. The trick wasn’t meant to be a challenge. So many magicians seem to be getting off on fooling their audience, and then they wonder why people fight being fooled.

There are certainly some people who just can’t stand the feeling of not knowing how something is done and will never give themselves over to a truly mysterious interaction. That’s fine. I may still show them the occasional trick from time to time if they want, I just won’t waste a big immersive presentation on them. I’ll show them some clever card tricks or a quick visual thing. Something they can have their guard up for but still appreciate.

(In the Fall issue of the newsletter for supporters of the site, I will give you some things to say that I’ve found to be strongly coercive in getting people to embrace mystery rather than fight it. I have a few different approaches I take and I’ll write them each out in a way you can adapt for your own use, if you’re so inclined.)

Part Two

The second thing to understand is that a trick doesn’t become a real mystery until people have exhausted their resources to figure it out. And Google is the primary resource people use to figure stuff out. So googling something doesn’t mean they’re anti-mystery. It just means they’re processing the trick. For a trick to have any meaning, people need to process it critically.

Think of it like this: Imagine a guy finds a big diamond just sitting on the street. At least, it looks like a diamond. But if it’s real it must be worth a fortune. So what does he do? He takes it to a jeweler or gemologist to find out if it’s real. That seems logical, right? You wouldn’t say, “Hey, if he wants it to be a real diamond, why is he testing it?” That would be a ridiculous statement. Putting it through the process to see if it’s real is how you assess its value.

Similarly, people will test an impossibility in the same way. If they google bill lemon magic trick they’ll get, literally, eight million results. It doesn’t matter which version of bill in lemon you did. They don’t care about the specific method, they just want to know if what they saw is common and explainable or if it’s something stranger.

In life, I always resort to the idea of turning your weaknesses into strengths. The internet has made what were once closely guarded secrets fairly easily available. And if you pick up a trendy effect from Ellusionist, your trick may be fun and fooling, but it will not withstand 15 seconds of research by a seriously interested spectator.

But you can work around that. You can create your own material. You can search for obscure effects in books and magazines. You can reframe tricks and put them in new contexts. Among other techniques to make your magic less googleable.

Because what happens if they google a trick and find… nothing? Then you’ve turned the power of this machine that has all the answers against them. Now they have to process this, “Not only do I not know how he did that, but I can’t find any evidence that such a thing can even be done. Wait… what exactly did I just see?”