Mailbag #113

/

If you and your other readers are planning to try out some haunted themed effects, I would recommend to do it on April 4th, which is the Chinese Memorial Day, but can be translated as tomb-sweeping day. There are a lot of rituals related to this Memorial Day. For example, in my province, we would put food in front of our deceased grandparents. We would then burn joss paper. After that, we were supposed to eat some of the food that we served to our ancestors because they are now blessed by our ancestors. This year is particularly special since it is on Thursday, April 4, 2024 (4th month, 4th day of the week). The pronunciation of 4 in Chinese sounds similar to death. So we can make up the story that it has strong connections with the died ones.—SY

This is a good suggestion. One of the projects that is on the furthest of back burners for me is to put together a little almanac of events, annual holidays and celestial events that can be used as the backdrop for different types of effects. Having a reason why what you’re showing them has to be done on this day, or at this time, is a nice subtle way to make your performance feel more significant.

Magic is particularly meaningless when it feels like it’s something that could be done by anyone, for anyone, at any moment in time. Tying a trick into the schedule of some outside event is an easy way to broaden the resonance of the trick beyond just what’s happening in your hands or on the table in front of you.

I have nothing to add to this email from Marc Kerstein, but thought it was worth sharing…

I was reading your post on “Sponts”, and it reminded me of when I first met Blaine. It was back in 2013, and I’d been working on my WebFX trick: a playing card reveal in a photo on your website, which you go to on the spectator’s phone.

At some point, some guy comes around to his hotel room and was keen for Blaine to show him a trick. For some reason, Blaine wanted *me* to show him a trick instead. Blaine said to him something like “no wait, you should really ask this guy,” pointing at me, and then shouts over at me something like: “Marc, can you show John the way you can make someone think of a playing card?”
I had no idea what he was talking about. He then said “Do you have cards on you? Here, you can use mine…” before failing to find a deck of cards anywhere nearby. Then he said “Wait, what about that photo you showed me earlier, do you think you could use that? Maybe try to get that card across to him?”

It took me a bit to really understand what he was doing, but this is very much a thing he does all the time - he often tries to recontextualise a trick to make it feel much more happenstance. It’s of course better if the spectator took the initiative in the first place, but the little charade upfront definitely makes a difference.

It’s something I’ve become aware of with tech magic - I often think the best magic that overtly uses tech should feel happenstance, otherwise the spectator begins to question the tech, which is the only commonality between effects. WikiTest is much better when it’s “we need to use a bunch of text somewhere and there’re no books nearby” rather than some strange insistence on using Wikipedia.—MK

I was reading Monday’s post, and revisiting Fuzzy PATEO. An idea came to mind, but I’m unsure if it strengthens anything, or not. I also don’t know if it has been thought of before.

With Wes Iseli’s FLIP technique you can have one object focused on at a time.

Wes offered a roulette style routine with coins/objects, but the performer is the only one flipping the coin. Alternating the flip of the coin adds nice shade, and suits casual interactions. Stasia’s coin also makes the technique easier, as mentioned in a previous post.

You still go back and forth per original PATEO, but there are no restrictions on who goes first, phrasing, or which object is chosen. You avoid the target on your turn, and control the outcome of the selection (based on their question) for theirs.

You have to present with Yes/No in lieu of Yes/Instinct so you are covered in case they select the target, and also ask to eliminate.

Some objects might stay in play multiple times, which adds to the feeling of fate taking its course. —LT

So, to be clear, he’s suggesting instead of a Pick Any Two Eliminate One force, you just go back and forth with the person picking one object and the other person flipping a coin to see if that object stays in play or is eliminated.

I think this would likely work, but I would be concerned that:

A) it goes on too long if you keep flipping and things aren’t getting eliminated

B) it might be more transparent when focusing on one item at a time that a particular item keeps getting saved when in front of you and you never pick it to be eliminated.

Plus, I like the “yes/instinct” option that’s inherent in the Fuzzy PATEO version and wouldn’t want to give it up.

That being said, I think a controlled coin flip does make a nice ending for the PATEO force (as opposed to the usual way of just having the magician decide which item stays or go). Using this technique to start the PATEO selection, and then—when it comes down to two items and your choice—using a coin flip at the end would feel very fair, I believe.

Until April...

/

This is the final post for March. Regular posting resumes Monday, April 1st. And the next issue of the newsletter will be out Sunday, the 31st of March.

If you ever wanted to purchase the GLOMM “Elite” Membership Kit, I would do so relatively soon, especially if you’re a XXXL. (And no, I didn’t mean that like “order soon before you have a heart attack.” I just meant that that’s the most limited size.)

We are on the last batch of shirts, pins, and membership cards that make up the membership kit, and they are not going to be reprinted again after this.

At this very moment, there are still plenty available in most sizes, and at the rate they normally sell, there should be for a while. But as they sell during the course of this year, they won’t be restocked. So if you’ve ever wanted one, don’t wait too long. You can order here.

The GLOMM will still continue to exist, and there may be some one-time printing of shirts of a completely different design in the future, but this particular shirt with the GLOMM logo is being retired.

Oliver W. writes…

I’ve been carrying around Evoke with me since it was released and performing it regularly. Yesterday I used the“spont” that you posted earlier this week and I just tossed the deck in a mailing envelope I had from Amazon. I showed it to a few people and the reactions were SURPRISINGLY different. Not only did it seem to get a stronger response but the entire interaction felt better in some way. […] I’m hoping you’ll share some more of these sponts or whatever you end up calling them.

That doesn’t surprise me. Evoke is exactly the sort of trick that can benefit from that technique.

I’ve gotten similar emails about almost every extra-presentational technique I’ve written about. Magicians are surprised that people actually notice them. Or that they seem to have an effect.

I promise you, these things are noticed. These aren’t magic techniques as much as they are story-telling techniques. And spectators are much more aware of them than some of the stupid shit we focus on as magicians. (Should I do my Elmsley count from the fingertips or from mechanic’s grip? No layman in the history of the universe has ever noticed a difference.)

The idea of the Spont category is to identify ways that lessen the friction of getting into a trick. Little things you can do to help you roll into a trick more naturally. Spectators feel the difference between abruptly moving into a trick or naturally flowing into it. As surely as they feel the difference between going to the store to buy an apple vs. plucking it off a tree as you pass by.

I’ve heard stories (I believe on reddit) where non-magicians were given gimmicked coins (that a magician had accidentally spent) as change in a store and they were left wondering what the hell they were looking at and trying to make sense of it.

It was funny to read their ideas about what they had found.

A copper/silver coin was called a “misprint.” Look, I don’t know much about the coin-making process, but I’m fairly certain you can’t just “accidentally” have a half-dollar on one side and a Mexican centavo on the other. That’s not like a “whoops” thing.

I read about another person who found a flipper coin, and someone surmised it was for spies to use. They could take secret bits of information. Like codes or something. Write it on tiny bits of paper and put it in the shell, and then put the inner coin back in place. That way, if anyone searched them, they wouldn’t find anything on them besides this innocent coin. (Little do they know the nuclear codes are trapped inside.)

I like that interpretation. And apparently it’s not that far-fetched. Hollow coins (not flipper coins) were used in espionage. If you have a WWII era flipper coin, you might be able to get away with it.

Anyway, I sort of felt like one of those people discovering a gimmicked coin the other day when I was at the library, and on the shelf of books that you could just take and keep for like 25¢ was this book.

20,000 words is, in fact, a book of 20,000 words.

This is the fifth edition, printed in 1965. The first edition was printed in 1934.

Why did they have to put out a 5th edition just a few years after the 4th? Well… to include “new” words like laser, epoxy, and googol.

I spent a couple of minutes examining the book closely, half-convinced I had found some weird magicians book test. But no, it’s a legit book.

The purpose of the book—as the introduction tells me—is that most people use dictionaries to look up the spelling of words, not definitions. So this is a dictionary without definitions. Making it much smaller and more convenient for “stenographers, authors, and proofreaders.”

I still think there’s a trick to be found in here. I’m not quite sure what it is just yet. We have many ways to force numbers in magic, and those numbers could be translated into a page, column, and position in the list. So the book would be a good way to transform a number force into a word force.

I do like using it as part of book test as well. “A normal book has maybe 75-100 thousand words in it. But only about four thousand different words. This little book has 20,000 distinct words and thoughts you could think of.” etc., etc.

There are lots of copies of the book on ebay for just a few dollars if you come up with a use for it.

Have a great rest of your March. See you all back here on Monday the 1st.

Spectator Interaction

/

This post is sort of related to last week’s post about acknowledging the reactions of your spectator and letting them affect you. That post was about making it clear to the spectator that you’re present and you’re tuned into them. And that what you’re doing is something you’re doing with them and for them, and not just AT them.

Today I’m going to discuss a similar topic about spectator interaction.

New magicians and bad magicians will have interactions that go like this.

Magician: Let me ask you a question, do you believe that objects can be haunted?

Spectator: I think so. I actually think the music box my grandma left me might be haunted.

Magician: I believe this deck is haunted. And I think I can prove it to you.

In other words, they ask a question, then ignore the answer and move on with their prepared statements.

The evolved magician asks the questions, listens to the answer, and follows up on it.

“Why do you think the music box is haunted?” “What did it do?” “Where is it now?” etc.

But what does the even more evolved magician do?

He doesn’t ask the question in the first place.

Here’s my logic on this…

The more bizarre, immersive, and unusual the trick you’re showing someone, the more you need to direct the interaction.

Why?

Because, the best chance we have of getting the other person to lose themselves in the experience is to frame our interaction as if it were real.

And when you’re showing someone something genuinely incredibe, you don’t split the focus with them.

If it were real you might say…

“This old guy on the subway yesterday grabbed my wrist and touched my forehead and said something to me in some language that I didn’t understand. It was maybe Eastern European or something. And I felt, like, a shock. And I think I might have blacked out for a bit. But if so it wasn’t long. And ever since then I’ve been having these… visions… I guess you’d call them. And I had one about you. And I just want to test something out because I’m a little freaked out about all of this.”

You wouldn’t say:

“This old guy on the subway yesterday grabbed my wrist and touched my forehead and said something to me in some language that I didn’t understand. Have you ever had a strange interaction with someone on the subway? Oh yeah? Tell me about it. Interesting! Okay, well the language this guy spoke was maybe Eastern European or something. Have you ever travelled there? Really? What was the best thing you ate on your trip? Ciorbă de Burtă? What’s that? Give me the recipe.”

Now, that’s not to say I don’t let my friends inject when I’m showing them a trick. I do a lot of magic that is hyper casual and conversational. If the premise of the trick is very personal or psychological or something, they will often carry a lot of the weight of the interaction.

But you have to let the nature of the trick dictate how much input they’re going to have. Asking them to carry a significant portion of the load when you’re doing something with a truly “out there” premise can be uncomfortable for people. And it “breaks the spell” you’re trying to cast. If you had something genuinely this crazy to show or tell people, you would be driving the interaction. And you wouldn’t be looking to them to give their input all along the way.

"Tell Me What I'm Thinking"

/

There seems to be a fear when performing mentalism that you’re going to get called out on the process you’re using to demonstrate this “skill.”

“How do I justify them writing down the word?”

“How do I justify having to put the word back in the wallet?”

“How do I justify them thinking of a word from a book.”

I think performers who are new to mentalism believe people are going to be like, “Okay, well if you can really read minds, then just tell me what I’m thinking. Without me writing anything down or looking at some cards or anything like that.”

Justifying the writing of something down is a subject I’ve broached before, so I’m not going to get into that again.

Instead, I want to talk about how I handle things in the (rare) situation that someone says, “Just tell me what I’m thinking,” or something along those lines.

First, let me say, that this doesn’t happen often. With the concern magicians seem to have, you might think it comes up a lot. It doesn’t. I can’t say why for sure. It’s not just people being nice. That’s not what I hear from laypeople when I break it down with them.

I think it’s just that people are not surprised that the magician or mindreader (or the faux-magician or mindreader) would have some sort of process involved in reading your mind.

Even in fiction, there aren’t many characters who are just able to read minds at any and all times, whenever they want. So there’s no need to fret because you can’t live up to that “pure” standard.

So yeah, it doesn’t come up that much in the first place.

But if it does? Here’s what I say. The conversation goes something like this….

Them: What if I just thought of something. Could you tell me what it is?

Me: Like something at random? Without seeing it in front of you or anything like that?

Them: Yeah, like if I just think of something, would you be able to tell me what I’m thinking of.

Me: Yeah. Maybe. If you think you can do it.

That’s the key phrase. I’m turning this around on them.

I then say something like…

“Most people need the visual cue to focus their mind in order to be able to project a thought. Unless they’re like hyper focused meditators or something. But if you think you can do it… yeah… I definitely want to try it.”

What then?

Well, then I try it with them.

“Okay, think of something. It will probably be easier for you if you go with something that you can picture in your head as an actual object. But do whatever feels right for you.”

Then I just do some cold-reading style best guesses. “It’s alive… or it was alive. No? Weird because I’m sensing some movement to this thing.”

A couple of times I’ve gotten close by just narrowing it down and guessing. But usually I’m just obviously wrong, and I bail on it.

“That’s okay. It can be super difficult, almost impossible, to be able to quiet your mind to project a thought like that.”

Now I’m almost consoling them for their “failure.”

My attitude suggests I don’t care that it didn’t work. I didn’t really expect it to. And it certainly doesn’t reflect poorly on me.

Not acting as if it was my failure is good, whether they’re friendly or hostile.

If the interaction is friendly and good-natured, and they’re really just curious if you can read their mind in this unadulterated way, then by not taking blame for the failure you can say, “That’s okay. You can learn to be a better projector of thoughts, and I can get better at reading you. If we practice, we can improve.” And you have a premise you can use with that person for a long time, where you try different experiments with passing thoughts between each other.

I have a couple of people in my life where this “storyline” has been playing out for years. And so they have maybe a dozen or so interactions to look back on where one or the other of us is trying to transmit a thought. Yes, I’m sure they know that these are tricks on some level. But it’s our own special little series of tricks and interactions that was borne out of their original question to me.

Now, if the person is doing it to challenge me. If they say, “But I thought you could read my mind?” in some sort of antagonistic way. Then I’ll say something like, “Well yeah, in a way. But reading a mind is like reading anything else. To read it, it has to be legible. You just weren’t able to project what you were thinking legibly. But don’t worry. Hardly anyone can do that. That’s why you really never see it done that way.”

But again, I would only push back on them if they’re pushing back towards me—if they’re taking something that is clearly meant to be in fun and trying to “win” the interaction. But that rarely ever happens.

The fact is, if—from the beginning—you can portray your mind reading as something we’re going to accomplish together rather than “Look what I can do,” then you can almost eliminate the issue of people challenging your process in the first place.

An Example of a Type of Technique I Haven't Named Yet

/

If you’ve followed this site for some time, you’ve probably noticed that I like to categorize techniques. Things like: Imps, Reps, Hooks, Performance Styles, Buy-Ins, Cast, etc. I even created a category for these categories: Extra-Presentational Techniques—meaning the things that you can add to a trick that enhance it other than just the presentation. It’s “extra” in the sense of going “beyond” the trick’s presentation. (Not “extra-presentational” like “very very presentational.”)

The reason I like categorizing such things is that I think it helps me to identify other similar techniques that might slip by me otherwise.

I’ve come up with a new category of techniques, but I haven’t come up with a name for it yet.

Part of the reason I’m having a hard time naming the technique is because I’m having a hard time stating simply what they do. Essentially, they’re designed to make a trick feel more vital, timely, and relevant. Something that makes a trick feel more “of the moment.”

If I pull a book out of my bag and ask you to think of a word from it, that’s one thing. If we’re walking, and we come across a Little Free Library and I do the same trick, I think that has a significantly different feel to it.

In this case, the Little Free Library aspect of it would be an example of the technique. It’s not really a “Hook” so much. At least not in my vernacular. A hook is something that causes the spectator to initiate the conversation that naturally leads to a trick. The hook might be designed to lead to one specific trick, or a conversation that leads to talking about magic generally. (The greatest hook of all time, I’m convinced by hearing from others, is this shirt from the Dumb Houdini store. Wear it out to a bar or gathering, and you will have all the opportunities you want to perform. The background being that this was the shirt you received when participating in this event.)

But what I’m talking about today isn’t really a Hook. It’s a simple thing you can add to a trick to make it seem more spontaneous. (Perhaps I’ll call this group of techniques Sponts. I’m not sure.)

Here’s the example I want to share with you today. It’s good for anyone who carries a messenger bag or computer bag. Or you can carry it in the backseat of your car. Or leave it inside your house near your front door.

All it is, is a mailing envelope addressed to you, in which you place the prop you need for a trick you want to perform.

It may seem like an insignificant thing, but I think it can add greatly to the experience.

Going back to the book test example. If I pull a book out of my bag and ask you to think of a word in it and I read your mind, that’s a good trick. But do you see how it can feel different if I’m arranging stuff in my bag and I pull out the padded envelope and drop it on the table as I’m putting my laptop back in and as I go to put the envelope back in, I’m like, “I just got this interesting book…oh wait… maybe we could try something…”?

Or an interesting crystal.

Or an interesting deck of cards.

Or an interesting picture.

Or even an “interesting old magic trick.”

In fact, it doesn’t need to even be “interesting.” It’s just a book you got in the mail today, or a deck of cards, or whatever. Maybe it’s something you bought yourself. Or something a friend bought for you. Or something this guy you barely know sent along because he saw it and thought of you.

The envelope I use looks something like this.

The return address is BH Curiosities. Which is a generic enough company that I could conceivably receive pretty much anything in the mail from, old or new. There’s no telling if it’s something I ordered for myself or someone ordered for me. So I can spin any story that way. The name suggests potentially an unusual place, but not necessarily. It’s not like, “The Emporium of Wonderful Magical Artifacts” or something. And the address is too complicated to likely be memorized by anyone taking a quick look at it. (Not that anyone will, really.)

The envelope is open. I don’t act like I don’t know what’s inside (although that’s a way you could go too). I just act as if this is something that came to me recently, and it ended up in my bag (or on a table near my front door).

You might say, “I don’t get it. I don’t see how that adds anything to the trick.” Well, I’m not going to try and convince you. It might not be the sort of thing that works for you. But it’s been working for me.

Think of it like this… Remember back to the days when you used to get your pictures developed at the store. Okay, so imagine it’s 1998. We meet up in a coffee shop. At some point I’m looking through my bag, and say, “Oh, I got some film developed today.” We look through the pictures together and a few of them are me, greased up in my Speedo, getting ready for a bodybuilding competition.

Now compare that to us meeting up at the coffee shop and I open up my bag and take out three framed pictures of myself, greased up in my Speedo, getting ready for a bodybuilding competition.

Let’s say my intention was the same in both situations: I wanted you to look at my oily beefcake physique. So the intention is the same, the pictures are the same, the environment is the same, your erection is the same.

The only thing that’s different is that they were in an envelope with other photos. And yet that completely changes the dynamic of the interaction. One feels casual and off-handed. The other feels desperate and pathetic.

Ideally, the feeling we’re going for is this…

Instead of them thinking, “He carries around that thing around with him so he can show people a trick.”

We want to nudge them toward thinking, “He has that thing with him because he just got it in the mail. And because I happened to be here with him now, he wanted to show what he just got to me.”

A trick that evolves out of the second thought is, generally, going to feel more raw and spontaneous (and therefore more personal and “of this very moment”) to the spectator. It adds a bit more serendipity to the encounter—”Oh, he happened to have just got this thing in the mail around the time we happened to be spending some time together.” And a little more serendipity is never a bad thing.

Sure, there are some tricks that have to be presented as “Here’s something I’ve been working on for a little while.” You don’t just “spontaneously” decide to create four piles of three cards and an Ace, or something like that. But there are a lot of tricks that benefit from feeling more unplanned. That can be hard to do when you’re carrying an object around with you. The Mailing Envelope Spont (?🤷‍♂️) is just a way to add a bit more of that element back in.

I’ll share more of these ideas in the future.

Mailbag #112: Hot

/

On the cafe at the moment there’s a bit of debate about the trick Hot by Alexander Marsh.

[Hot is a trick where you are able to know, without looking, the results of a spectator’s coin flip. It uses a “decision-making coin” rather than a normal coin.]

I like the effect, but I’m not sure if I should buy it for the routine and then just use gimmicked normal coins rather than the gimmicked decision making coins. WWJD? What would Jerx do?—RJA

I completely understand the desire to do this with “normal” coins. For twenty years, at least, I was a big believer in the idea that magic should use “everyday objects.” I still believe that in most cases. Unless the strange object that you’re using is, in fact, the focal point of the story you’re telling. (See my discussion on the Nickels to Dimes gimmick).

Most magicians are telling the same story with every trick: “I have a special power.” And if that’s the story you’re telling, then yes, you’ll probably want to use normal coins.

The benefits to using normal coins for this are obvious. (To be cleaer, I say “normal” but you will need to switch in and out gimmicked coins, if I’m understanding how the trick works correctly. I just mean “normal” in the sense of a coin the spectator is familiar with.)

But there are drawbacks to normal coins for this trick as well:

First, If you leave a quarter on the table, it’s not going to inspire anyone to ask about it. Whereas, if this coin is sitting out, there’s a likelihood they might pick it up, look at it, comment on it, etc. Which is a nice, natural transition into the trick.

Second, from the social magician’s perspective… okay, so I show you a trick one day where you flip a “normal” coin, and I’m able to tell you how it landed.

Now, what happens the next day, or a month from now, when you pull out your own quarter and say, “Hey, let’s try that again”? If you’re a professional, or you won’t see that person ever again for some reason, this isn’t a concern. But if you’re a casual performer, then your ability to know the result of a coin toss actually is something that’s likely to come up in the future. And if you have to run off to get your own “normal” quarter to demonstrate it, then that’s actually going to be far more suspicious than using this coin, I would think.

Third, story-wise, this coin offers a lot more than just doing it with a normal coin. Where did the coin come from? What’s the history behind it? How did it end up with you? If you can make the coin feel like a unique object, that’s going to help disguise the method.

And instead of the story being, “This is something I can do with any coin.” It becomes, “Yes, this is an unusual coin… more unusual than you know.”

Maybe the story is that you’ve been using this coin since your uncle gave it to you as a kid, and that’s why you have this connection to it.

Or maybe it’s this “really convenient” decision-making coin. “I don’t know how it works. But you don’t even need to carry it with you throughout the day. Somehow, if you just concentrate, you’re able to know how it would land if it had been flipped. I’ll show you….”

Or maybe you tell this story…

You ask your friend to help plan an imaginary evening for you, using this decision-making coin. “Should I follow my head and do my taxes? Or should I follow my heart and read my collection of Juggs magazine?”

They flip the coin but don’t tell you the results.

“Okay, should I follow my head and have a healthy grilled chicken breast for dinner? Or follow my heart and order a large pizza?” They again flip the coin but don’t tell you how it landed.

“And finally, should I kill myself tonight by drinking bleach? Yes or no?”

For a final time, they flip the coin.

You ask what the coin said you should do tonight. Read Juggs, eat pizza, and kill yourself.

“Here’s the thing,” you say, “this isn’t really a decision-making coin. It’s better. The guy at the curiosities shop who sold it to me explained how it works. Sort of. It doesn’t make a decision for you. It somehow… knows what you already want. So if you’re not sure what you really want, it will tell you. And if you are sure, you can justify your decisions with the coin by seemingly ‘leaving it up to fate.’”

You get up from the couch and start walking to the kitchen and wave your friend along to follow you.

“The truth is,” you say, “I already knew what my plans for tonight would be ages ago.”

In the kitchen now, they see the table is covered with porno mags, pizza boxes and a wine glass full of bleach.

So, while I can’t speak to the strength of the method or the handling used, I can say that I wouldn’t be turned off by the decision-making coin aspect of the trick. I’d probably be more likely to do the trick with such a coin rather than a normal quarter.

Keep in mind that while it isn’t a “normal coin” it’s also not a completely made-up thing for a trick. Decision-making coins do exist. You can buy them on Amazon. I’m sure most people have heard of them, and if they haven’t, it takes about three seconds to explain what they are.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention my favorite use of this type of prop which uses my friend Stasia’s unique decision-making coin, which has a YES but no NO. More details can be found here.

Dustings #106

/

Schedule announcement:

You’ve got nine months to prepare. I will be taking most of January 2025 off to finish book number eight. At that point, it will be my first extended time off from the site in three years. But trust me, time off to write a book is not “time off.” Just like the week at the end of the month when I write the newsletter isn’t like…

Book number eight, is called The 88th Parallel (I think). And it will be out in April/May of next year for supporters at the Rich Uncle Millionaire level. (Those supporter slots are limited and currently sold out. But if you’re a supporter at the lower level, you’ll be on the waiting list for R.U.M. slots when they become available.)

If you’re at the intersection of Tenyo, the Jerx, and 3-D printing, like supporter Nick O., then you might be interested in this email he sent recently.

I've been getting into 3D printing over the last year and one of the best uses for it is making one-off home organization things nobody else in the world cares about.

Recently I've been cleaning up my shelves to try and build a little "wonder room" display and thought it'd be nice to have some of the examinable Tenyo tricks out and ready to go in a neat manner. 

So I designed this little display stand for Mister Danger.

https://www.printables.com/model/805654-mister-danger-display-stand

Finally… FINALLY!!!

People are finally creating magic that addresses the question… “What would you do if you had REAL magic powers?”

Me in school when the teacher says, “I want you to have three supporting bullet points.” And I have a total of zero supporting bullet points.