In The Beginning: The Pre-Sliced Banana Trick

I collect beginner's cookbooks. Ideally from the mid-20th century. And ideally reproductions because I'm not a huge fan of 60-year old mayonnaise stains.

Here's a sampling of my collection.

I don't cook too much from these books. I just read them like literature. I prefer mid-century cookbooks because the art is generally more interesting, the language has more character, and you get stuff you just don't get in modern cookbooks. Like racist cereal.

And I particularly like beginner's cookbooks -- even though I am at the very least an intermediate cook -- because I like reintroducing myself to my hobbies every few years. It's good to be reminded of stuff, or to look at stuff you're already familiar with from someone else's perspective. 

I like to do this with magic as well.

If your goal is to come up with more interesting or engaging presentations for your magic, go get Magic for Dummies, Mark Wilson's Complete Course in Magic, or Joshua Jay's Magic: The Complete Course. (Hmmm.... I just noticed that. Super original name there, Joshua. Couldn't be bothered to crack a thesaurus? Magic: The Entire Curriculum, not good enough?) Now work your way through the book and try to put the effects in a more interesting context. It won't be easy. With some tricks (beginner's or not) the magic just isn't strong enough to support a particularly compelling performance. But if you're someone who values presentations, then it should be somewhat fun, even if the end result isn't really something you'd ever do.

I've gone through a couple of books this way. I don't have them with me where I am at the moment, but I remember a few ideas well enough that I will write them up in the future.

Today I want to talk about the pre-sliced banana trick. I've always liked this trick since I was a kid. I like the history behind it. Originally the books would recommend using a needle and thread to go around 5 or 6 points on the circumference of a banana and then pulling the thread through the banana to create one slice. And then you had to repeat it again for each slice you wanted to do.

Then one night, some dude (and I would love to meet this guy), was probably sitting near a lamp with his glasses on the end of his nose, trying to line up his next needle insertion, when it dawned on him, "What the fuck am I doing here sewing a banana?" And he realized he could just poke the needle in and wiggle it back and forth to create a slice. 

Generally, I would probably do this as a non-presentation. I would take Joshua Jay's idea (or at least the one he presents in his book) of acting like you're taking the "soul" out of the banana and then slicing it with an invisible knife, then acting as if you're putting the soul back into the banana. Then I'd peel it and put it on my cereal. (As part of some racist portrait.) I wouldn't comment on it. I'd just make sure someone was paying attention to me. I wouldn't respond to anything they say until the banana was on the cereal. I'd act like I was in a fugue state. Then I'd snap out of it. Then I'd deny everything they said happened and claim I got a knife, peeled the banana and cut it. When they give their impression of what happened I'd be like, "Look, Occam's Razor, what's more likely: that you didn't see what happened clearly or that I went into a trance and... what exactly?... cut a banana when it was inside its peel with an invisible knife?"

This is actually an example of an extension of my Distracted Artist Presentation style, that I simply think of as the Denial Presentation. There is nothing more fun than getting someone to argue that something impossible happened. Eventually you just act like you're conceding to what they said, and say in a real jerky way, "Ok. Sure. Whatever you say. I cut a banana while it was still in the peel. You got me pegged. Can we move on now?" It's a complete reversal of the standard magician/spectator interaction.

Here's another way to present this trick. I did it this way this summer while staying at a my friend's beach-house. Well, my friend's parent's beach-house. 

Here's what you do. Buy a bunch of bananas and prep all of them. But before you do that, stamp the name of any candy that comes in fruit flavors and in multiple pieces to a pack, on the side of the banana. I stamped "Mentos" on mine. I had planned to stamp Starburst, but it wouldn't fit. 

This is not just a presentational ploy, but it also helps the method. You see, you do the prep where the letters are. This hides the set-up completely. In the old way the needle dots would become brown after a short while and could sometimes look a little odd on an otherwise perfectly yellow banana. With this prep, everything is completely camouflaged. 

Now you put them in a fruit bowl.

Ideally someone will take a banana and notice this weirdness for themselves. You can feed the fire by being like, "Oh right, I think I heard that Mentos is getting into the fresh fruit game because the price of sugar is getting so goddamned high. Thanks a lot, Barack Hussain Obama!" If you're performing for someone particularly conservative, that line will work really well. You can talk further about something you read about how they're trying to maintain their "brand" by having the banana in individual pieces. "I think they cross-breed them with oranges or something to get them to be pre-sliced."

They will open at least a couple more bananas because they want to show everyone in the house. Try to stop them from opening all of them. 

The next morning they will come down the stairs. At some point they will notice the bananas in the fruit bowl. 

"What happened to the Mentos bananas?" they ask.

"The...Mentos...Bananas?" you say slowly, as if you're trying to interpret this phrase. "What do you mean? Did someone have banana Mentos or something?"

"The bananas we had yesterday. The Mentos ones."

"Yeah I had a banana yesterday, but what do you mean, 'The Mentos ones'?"

Let him explain to you what he's talking about. Just act super confused. "No, I wasn't here for that," you say. When he insists you were there the whole time you say, "Uhm, I think I'd remember that. Honestly, this sounds more like a dream or something. Could you have dreamed it?"

He'll take a look at the bananas that are in the fruit bowl and maybe peel one. It's normal. (You switched them out overnight.) You keep denying, and keep saying it was probably a dream he had. He'll swear it wasn't. Eventually he may be frustrated enough to root through the garbage looking for yesterday's peels. He finds them. They're normal banana peels. (You switched those out last night too.)

When I did this a couple months ago, it worked almost too well. I knew my friends would all be onto me if I tried it with them. Even if they didn't know me for trying shit like this, people my age will just immediately google anything they don't know about. Instead we targeted my friend's sweet parents who are in their mid-60s and were staying at the house too. So it was six against two. And on Saturday there were six of us all talking about how we'd read about these new Mentos bananas and how convenient they were and all that. Then on Sunday there were six of us all saying, "No. That never happened." And trying to convince them that they both shared the same weird dream. "That's actually kind of sweet," one of my friends told them. "You two must be really close to share a dream like that." Every condescending attempt to comfort them about the situation just riled them up even more.

"Don't be embarrassed," I said. "I once had a dream that everyone I loved died, and when I woke up after that I remember being said for a couple moments. So this is kind of the same thing."

"It wasn't a dream!" they both snapped.

Epilogue

Before we left I had my friend, whose parents we were messing with, open two windows on their web browser with the following google searches in them, as if she had just forgotten to close the tabs before we left. 

First window:

Second window:

Yes, it's a little mean. But if I thought they were really upset or disturbed in any way, I would have come clean immediately. I've always been good around friends' parents. And even now that most of my friends are mid-20s to late-40s, I still try and make a good impression on their parents. You might say this trick was disrespectful, but it was all in good fun. They're just in their 60s for god's sake. I enjoy spending time with people older than myself. And from doing so I've learned that the least respectful thing you can do is to treat people with a few years on you like they're faberge eggs. So I've always fucked around with my friends' parents the same way I do with my friends, and they generally love me for it.


Here Come the Jerx: Danny Cole vs Justin Willman

I'm the best person to settle magic disputes. Why? Well, I'm smarter than most of you. I have more common sense. And I don't know or care about any of you personally.

Today's case:

Danny Cole vs. Justin Willman

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

An Open Letter to Justin Willman from Danny Cole

Justin,

So obviously I saw your wedding video magic trick because you shared it on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc., and I am feeling pretty bummed about your decision to perform it as you did. 

We both know that the effect of lying back with both feet planted predates my chair routine. It was done on THEM and I didn’t have anything to do with its creation. Chris Gongora and Enrico De La Vega created that. I know that Enrico gave you permission to perform their effect using their method for your wedding. 

The effect you did it at your wedding was the same effect from THEM but not the same method. The crucial difference is the ability for free movement before and after the effect. There would be no dance or even walking around with their method. 

As you know in 2004, after THEM, I created a method to sit in the air with no chair and do a backwards lean as I fought with the chair. I used the “lean” method as a starting point and added the absolute minimum support to that classic lean method so that I could sit and lean backwards. I used a carpet. I could also raise my leg. I could walk around and there was very free movement before and after the effect. As it happens, with my apparatus, it is possible to do the same effect as on THEM. I never used it that way. 

Then Cyril came along a couple years after I started doing it, and realized he could do the effect from THEM with my method. He connected those dots. 

That ability of the performer to walk and move around before and after the effect is very important. However, that isn’t possible with Chris and Rico’s method. And it is curious that while you had permission to use Chris and Rico’s method, that you actually didn’t. I would have no issues if you did. Why didn't you just do that? I think it is because using my method for this effect makes a huge difference in the overall magical atmosphere and impossibility. Without it, you have no dance for your wedding dance video. And in my opinion you are stealing my method because you did it without my permission. 

We can all vanish a coin, but sometimes it looks more magical when one magician does it as opposed to another. Why? Because of the method. The method matters. 

Here is what I think: you are going to claim you didn’t know that you were stealing my method to do their effect and just apologize. But that is just you wriggling through a loophole that allows you to get away with stealing something and still continue to rack up your “views”. Do your Justin Willman “brand” a favor and always do your own thing and never steal ideas. Do a “Drunk History” on that…oh wait, that wasn’t your idea either. 

Danny Cole

Exhibit C

Justin's response from Danny's Facebook

Verdict

Everyone is wrong here.

And I'm not saying Danny is wrong for being upset and making this a public issue. I completely understand why he's doing it.

And I'm not saying Justin is wrong for not getting express permission from Danny. I don't know enough about the nature of the illusion to know if that was required. And honestly, if I was performing any trick at my wedding reception, I wouldn't bother getting "permission" from any of you turds. For the same reason I wouldn't okay it with Tim DeLaughter from Tripping Daisy if I wanted to cover Sonic Bloom during my wedding reception. It's completely unnecessary.

"But," you'll say, "there's a difference between a performance for a private wedding reception and then taking that video and putting it on social media and having it go viral." That's a valid point. But again, it comes down to personal conscience and intent which is very difficult to judge in people.

No, when I say that "everyone is wrong," I mean that everyone is wrong about what the issue is here. We think it's about the method. "That's his method." "That's not your method." "That's not his method." "I was inspired by another method." "That method wasn't yours to take." "The method is what made the effect."

Magicians continue to be preoccupied with the same bullshit that they have for decades or centuries and then wonder why audiences often see magic as irrelevant. The "method" was not what got this trick 6 million+ views on youtube. As I wrote in an email earlier today:

Yeah, it blew up and got a lot of attention, but if anything, the amount of attention it got proves that the method wasn't the most important thing about this trick. If it was then Danny would have gotten that amount of attention for his performance(s) of the same trick. The audiences don't care about the secret. They care about the context and Justin put it into a better context than Danny did.

Magic methods are tools, people. That's it. We are like painters whose main focus is the brush everyone else is using. I'm not saying we shouldn't respect creators and strive for proper crediting and acknowledge our inspirations, we absolutely should. And we should be vigilant against people blatantly ripping off tricks and releasing their own versions and things like that. But, for better or for worse, your method can't be protected. Someone else may take it, or someone else may think of it on their own, either way it's out in the ether. And if someone takes it and uses it to connect and bring joy to millions of people, maybe that's not the worst thing in the world. Again, I sympathize with everyone's position, I just wish we could bring this passion for originality to the public-face of the art as well. Instead we have a lot of, "Hey, did he use MY method for putting a bill in a lemon!?" Instead of, "Why don't we all stop putting bills in lemons for a hot minute."

Sentencing

Justin should make a public post on his social networks about Danny Cole. Not as a mea culpa, but to thank him for his inspiration in whatever way his effect directly or indirectly led to Justin's. He should post a link to Danny's social media and video of some of his performances. And as punishment, Justin should have to do something really embarrassing. Like host a reality show about cupcakes or something.

“Art comes out of art. You cannot have Brahms without Beethoven. You cannot have Beethoven without Bach.”
Guy Davenport

What Does Your Choice of Playing Cards Say About You?

The Karnival Assassins Deck

"I saw an ad for Ed Hardy shirts in Maxim magazine in 2006. I haven't paid much attention, but I'm pretty sure that's still a popular look for non-douchebags, right? These skulls? These guns? Thats totally my style. I'm like a well-dressed skeleton with a tommy-gun. Am I bad? Maybe a little. Am I evil? Hey, you said it not me. Yeah, maybe I'm a little dangerous. What can I say?.... MOM! What the fuck? You forgot to get me pizza rolls, you bitch! You never forget to get stuff when Kurt asks you to!"

The Physique Deck

"The human body is nature's most elegant creation. The perfect intersection of form and function. It is, without a doubt, the strongest evidence of a creator that we have..... I'm just goofin'. I masturbate to my deck of cards."

Bicycle Elegance Deck

"I accept only the finest things in life. Like a Donald Trump Signature Collection Necktie. Do I have a small penis? What would make you say that? Overcompensating? I don't know what you mean. No, I'm just dumb enough to think that gold as a color (not just as a metal) suggests some measure of intrinsic value. I guess I am an idiot. And yes, I do have a small penis."

Black Americana Deck

"The rich cultural history that is embodied in these, aww fuck it, I just hate coons."

The Bicycle Starlight Deck

"I was blinded by a man who threw acid in my face. On a completely separate note, these cards are probably very beautiful, right? They're advertised as a having 'a glorious abyss of glowing stars' on the reverse side. They do, right? They don't just have some technicolor vomit swirl on the back, do they? That would be the worst thing that ever happened to me if they did. And I'm a guy who got acid thrown in his face."

Dear Mentalists: The Emotional Appeal

I had a friend who worked for a well known stage illusionist. One of his jobs for this illusionist -- when they were breaking in a new trick, or performing in a new theater -- was to look at the illusion from every other seat in the house. So he would just hop from seat to seat during the rehearsals looking at the illusion to check that it looked perfect from that angle. I like that dedication to making sure an effect really fools people. You get this with sleight-of-hand too with people practicing in front mirrors at three different angles or videotaping their performances. In mentalism though, it sometimes seems like there is no testing involved at all.

But don't worry! I love mentalism. I love performing it, and I love watching it with the uninitiated to get their honest feedback about what sorts of things fool them and what don't. Over the next couple of weeks, I will be making a series of posts about techniques and presentational angles in mentalism that I don't think work quite as well as a lot of performers might think. Today I want to talk about...

The Emotional Appeal 

You think by couching your effect in some maudlin story, or telling people that the effect is only possible because of the deep connection you share, that you're touching their heart strings and giving them a powerful experience. Maybe you are. But just as often (if not more), what I've seen is this type of presentation getting in the way of your ability to judge the strength and viability of your material.

If you want to lay some sappy story or a message of self-empowerment over a trick, you first need to perform that trick a number of times without that presentation. Here's why: With an overly-earnest presentation, people will be too embarrassed for you to call you out on a weak trick. I think many mentalists recognize this subconsciously and they use this as a bit of a self-defense technique when performing something with questionable methods. They'll couch the effects in something very personal or sentimental, and because people are nice and generally don't want to call other people out, they'll nod appreciatively and give you a polite, "Wow. That's great," at the end of your trick. 

If you perform mentalism regularly and get a lot of "pleasant" reactions, this could very well be your issue. When I used to perform a lot of straight mentalism, I loved doing very personal, intense presentations. And I noticed that some tricks would completely overwhelm people and fuck with their heads. And others would get a pleasant response. At first I thought it was an issue of presentation because they were seemingly fooled by both effects. But after testing them in different environments I just realized the polite reactions were people who weren't that fooled by the method, but who liked me well enough that they weren't going to call me on my shit, especially when I'd presented it in such a heartfelt manner. 

I then came up with a little test for the effects I would perform. Before working on a real presentation for them, I wanted to evaluate the foundation of the effect first. So I would perform it a few times with this style of presentation: "Hey, ya big dingus. I'm going to read your mind now, because I'm a genius and you're a fucking idiot, so brace yourself." Maybe not those exact words, but that attitude. Now, just try and do one of your cute prop-less math-based "mind-reading" tricks with that presentation. You will get eviscerated. But when you find material that stands-up to this type of antagonistic presentation -- where the spectators are blown away despite themselves -- and then you add on a presentation that is personal or emotional you will find yourself getting those explosively strong reactions you've imagined. (Reactions, honestly, that I'm not always quite comfortable receiving, but the type I think a lot of people are hoping for.)

You might say, "Yes, but if I'm not openly antagonistic, the spectator won't be looking as hard at everything to find the secret. They'll give me the benefit of the doubt. They'll go along with what I say." And yes, that's true. But here's the thing: your spectator knows when they're playing along and their reactions will be in accord with that knowledge.

Yes, use emotion, use a personal connection, but layer it on top of an effect that stands strong on its own. Don't rely on emotion to cover a weak method. The difference between an effect that is amplified by the emotion and an effect that relies on it is the difference between the rumble of the rocking bed of passionate lovers, and the metronomic mattress squeak of a sympathy fuck.

The Helen Keller Reveal

I've mentioned before that I'm always trying to come up with different ways to reveal a peeked word. The following idea is an absurd but compelling way to do so. 

You tell your friend you want to do an experiment in sensory deprivation. You ask her to tie a blindfold around your head. Then you put on headphones that are blaring music, a clothespin on your nose, and you finish off by putting on gloves.

"I want you to go in the other room!" you scream. "There's a business card on the counter! On the back of it I want you to write a word! Then fold it into quarters and put it in your pocket! Am I yelling?! "

When they return you do nothing. Eventually they will poke you. "Oh, you're back," you bellow. "You know how they say that when you lose a sense your other senses compensate for the loss by being enhanced? Well I can't see, hear, smell, or feel! I have taken away all my senses but one! Hand me your card! In a moment I am going to taste your word! Not the word itself, of course, but the pattern of the ink on the card! if this works I will be able to discern the letters with my tongue!"

Your friend hands you her card. You tear it into smaller pieces and toss them in your mouth. After a few moments of swishing the card around in your mouth like a fine wine you either swallow it or spit out the pieces. 

"It tastes like... hmm... it's not 'glass' but it's similar... glazer? No! It's glacier! ... Am I right? Tap me on my shoulder if I'm right."

And of course you're right. This is just a blindfold peek and a center tear and a lot of theater. 

The center tear is about 20% more difficult with gloves on, but not impossible. The thinner the gloves the better, obviously. The aptly named "Shocker" gloves I'm wearing in this picture work very well. They're about baseball batting-glove thickness.  

You don't need to do a fancy center tear. The fact that you've handicapped yourself with the blindfold and the gloves gives you much more leeway for fumbling. 

Here's how I do the center tear in this context. The person hands you the folded card and you peek and get the target corner so it faces the upper right. You tear the card in half and immediately pop the non-target half into your mouth. This is very disarming because it looks like you're getting rid of half of the card within moments of being handed it. And you are. Now tear in half the piece that remains. Cock your head back and sprinkle the non-target pieces into your mouth. This is excellent misdirection for your other hand popping open the remaining piece. Now, due to the blindfold, and all the attention on you chewing the card, you can take a good long look at the info before ripping up that final piece and putting it in your mouth.

You could, of course, change around the sensory deprivation. Instead of plugging your nose, you tape your mouth shut and claim to smell the word, for example. 

When you're done, ask for silence and then say, "To quote Helen Keller: The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched - they must be felt with the heart." Then turn around and walk straight into a wall. 

Sundry Drive No. 11

Is Ickle Pickle the worst name for a magic company ever?

Trick question. It's the worst name for anything ever.


In the coming months I will be doing some magic-related focus groups. If there is a magician, effect, or technique which you'd like to get real people's opinions on, send me an email and I might be able to add it to the list of things we're testing. 

These tests tend to be a little soul-crushing and not the sort of things magicians want to hear. ("What? 100% of the people questioned said the dollar bill must be dangling from a very small thread? Well, clearly you performed it poorly. What's that? Oh, you showed them Losander's performance? Huh.") But, that being said, they're always pretty interesting, at least as far as I'm concerned.


Do Pedophiles Have A Certain Smile?

For those of you who use the presentation of, "I can read your mind based on subtle body cues," maybe this article could be of interest.

I mean, it would certainly be more compelling than what you're probably doing.

Picture it. You have three people on stage, they each have a coin hidden in one of their outstretched hands.

To the first person you say, "Your nose is tilted to the right. The coin is in your right hand." 

To the second person you say, "Your body weight is shifted to the left. This is a typical overcompensation when someone holds a coin in the their right hand. The coin is in your right hand."

To the third person you say [quoting that page], "You have tight, discolored lips; a visible tongue; concealed teeth; a cocked head; twisted facial features; a bald forehead; disheveled hair; and a general aura of faggotry. The coin is in your left hand. Also you're a pedophile."


A lot of you have been avoiding using your cat in your act because the wizard hat usually takes up too much space in your luggage. Good news. Archie McPhee has just released this:


This is magic. The Dirty Projectors performing an acoustic version of When The World Comes To An End.


The Mad Libs Ploy

An illusion has three stages.

First there is the setup, in which the nature of what might be attempted at is hinted at, or suggested, or explained. The apparatus is seen. volunteers from the audience sometimes participate in preparation. As the trick is being setup, the magician will make use of every possible use of misdirection.

The performance is where the magician’s lifetime of practice, and his innate skill as a performer, cojoin to produce the magical display.

The third stage is sometimes called the effect, or the prestige, and this is the product of magic. If a rabbit is pulled from a hat, the rabbit, which apparently did not exist before the trick was performed, can be said to be the prestige of that trick.
— Christopher Priest, "The Prestige"

This is one of my favorite things I've posted. It's a continuation of last week's post on the Phil Deck, but it's a lot more than that (and you don't necessarily need a Phil Deck to do it. I'll explain a regular deck handling at the end.). It started off as just a way to present a separate effect and I performed it that way a few times. But then it became an effect itself. You'll see. 

The Setup

The idea is pretty simple. You show your friends a deck of cards. On the backs of the cards are a bunch of words: nouns, verbs, and adjectives. You shuffle up the cards as you tell your friends that you're trying to increase your magic creativity for competition you're entering. ("First prize is a date with Melinda, The First Lady of Magic. Ten runners up get a subscription to True Mysteries which is a service that sends you the blueprints for magic effects in the mail once a month. I'm already a subscriber but it would be nice to get it free because it's pretty expensive. And 100 entrants will be randomly picked to be guest editor for a day at thejerx.com, the world's greatest magic blog.") The competition is a test of magical improvisation so you've created this deck to push your creativity to the limits. You pull out a piece of paper and it says:

"So what I do is I mix up the deck, then choose four random cards to complete that sentence."

You finish shuffling and take a few cards off the top of the deck and place them on the paper so they make a sentence.

FLOAT a HARMONICA with a DOG BISCUIT in a MESSY way.

"And then I challenge myself to to accomplish this trick. I usually give myself like 30 minutes to think of something and if I can do it I give myself a point in the win column, if not I give myself a point in the loss column."

You turn the page over and there are three marks in the win column and eight in the loss. Clearly this is pretty challenging. 

You spread through the deck to show them a bunch of different words. The nouns are all things that might be found in your home. The verbs are all magic related words, e.g. "tear and restore," "change," "penetrate," etc. And the adjectives are just adjectives: fast, painful, scary, sexy.

You ask your four friends to each think of a card. You ask one to think of heart, one a spade, one a club, and one diamond. You do this so they don't think of the same card and so you get a mix of different types of words. (All the verbs on diamonds, adjectives on hearts, etc.) The four people each tell you their card (or one person tells you her four cards), and you pull them out of the deck. You say, "Your choices are now the foundations for this trick." You pull out a couple other cards as examples. "You said the 4 of clubs, on the back it says 'Egg.' If you had said the 5 of clubs we would have gotten 'Skateboard.' You chose the 10 of diamonds which is [you turn the card over] 'Vanish.' If you had picked the 8 of diamonds it would have been, 'Tear and Restore.'" You show the back of the 8 of diamonds and then put that card back in the deck and for the last time you spread the deck face down so they can see all the different words they theoretically could have picked.

You take the four cards they named, turn them over, and put them into their proper parts of the sentence.

VANISH an EGG with a BICYCLE in a FIERY way.

 

The Performance

"Awww.... what the hell...," you say and let out a big, long sigh. You drag your bike in from the garage and get an egg from the kitchen. You just stare at them both for a few minutes. "Feel free to watch some tv or something," you say. 

You wait a while. Every now and then you get up and try and balance the egg on the bike seat, or spin the wheel slowly and try and place the egg through it. After each little brainstorm you sit back down and just stare intently at the bike and egg. Eventually you jump up excitedly, get your friends' attention and vanish an egg with your bicycle in a fiery way.

And how do you do that? Bitch, I don't know. It's just an example. In this scenario you've stumbled upon a way to vanish an egg with a bicycle and some flash paper and the Mad Lib Ploy is how you're getting into it. Let me be clear -- and if you've received the emails that I've received you'd understand why I need to make this clear -- this post is NOT about how to vanish an egg with a bicycle. This post is about justifying any trick you have that makes use of apparently random items.

The Reasons

But why bother using a Phil Deck to get into a trick like this? Why not just vanish an egg with a bicycle (or whatever)?

Multiple reasons:

  • Making it seem improvisational is more interesting to your audience. It feels like this is a unique moment, not something you're prepared for. Their choices are the DNA for this trick.
  • You're giving them a backstage peek into the process of creating magic (supposedly) which is inherently interesting.
  • Take your weaknesses and make them strengths. You're taking a non-organic trick with these random items and -- by giving it a context -- you're making the complete randomness a feature of the effect. It's something you're highlighting. 

There's no reason to do this presentation if you're going to force the phrase, "VANISH the CARD with an ENVELOPE in a MYSTERIOUS way." The whole purpose of this presentation is to give a context to an effect you have that utilizes seemingly random props. People often think, "Well, this effect uses ordinary objects, therefore it's an 'organic' effect that I don't need to justify." But using ordinary objects out of their normal context isn't that much better than using an obvious magic prop. You can use a brass chop-cup and a crocheted ball to do an effect and they might think, "Hmm... there's probably something special about that cup. It doesn't look like any ordinary cup I've used." Or you can use an empty tin can and -- unless you're in a recycling center -- they might think, "Hmmm... there's probably something special about that tin can, or else why would he have brought it here to this wedding reception?"

The Method

As I've already indicated, you're using a Phil deck, but instead of one force item, you're using it to force four different words. Simple. Later, I'll discuss a non-gimmicked deck option.

In theory this could be the end of the idea. But I prefer to take the whole presentation one step further into...

The Prestige

You wipe off your brow, sit back on the couch and give yourself a point in the win column for successfully executing the trick. You start cleaning up a little and put the pad of paper away. You take your mail off the table and flip through it. 

"Oh," you say, "this is that subscription service I'm hoping to win. The one that sends you magic blueprints each month. It's like $600 a year if you can believe that."

You show them the envelope and then tear into it.

"Oh, fuck me," you say. "It would have been so much easier to do it this way." And you drop everything to the table.

Your friends are confused and astonished. They pick up the deck of cards with the words on them and spread through them. All the words are different. Only their choice of cards would create the effect that was on the blueprint in that envelope. You let it slowly dawn on you that this is quite a coincidence. "Wait... that's impossible, isn't it? This company is pretty fucked up. Sometimes they respond to emails I've only thought of sending them. And remember I said it's $600 a year? Well they take 15% off if you send them a chunk of your hair, but it can't be cut, it has to be pulled from the root. What could that be about?" you say, rubbing the back of your head and staring off as you relive the painful memory.

The End.

Rationale

I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking, "Oh, Andy, you just spoiled the whole feeling of the main trick being improvisational by having that reveal at the end."

Well... yes and no.

Yes, it does somewhat, but not necessarily any more than any prediction "spoils" the whole feeling of fairness in regards to whatever selection procedure was being used. 

And remember what the purpose of "creating" the effect from "random" words is. The purpose is not to make the audience believe I'm a genius at creating magic effects in a completely spontaneous nature. They may have that impression in the middle of the performance, but I don't mind tearing that down at the end. The purpose is to get them interested in the effect and engaged in the moment in a way they wouldn't be if I just said, "I know how to vanish an egg with a bicycle." At this stage of the presentation, those benefits of the selection procedure have already been wrung dry. So when I reveal the prediction (which in this case isn't really a prediction) it turns the whole "random word selection procedure" into an effect itself. And if you follow this from beginning to end, it's like a 20 minute suite with separate movements. All of which are very different but intriguing in their own way.

Part One: You capture their attention with the idea of a completely original trick. One that their decisions will help create and one you couldn't possible have prepared for. Just the notion of a deck of cards as a random sentence generator is interesting itself on some level.
Part Two: They get to see you in your brainstorming phase. I've been harping on this since I started this site, but don't underestimate how much people will enjoy this type of thing. It's fun for people to watch the process of creation and see things in an unfinished stage.

Part Three: Now they are seeing an actual magic trick. Vanishing an egg with a bicycle. Or making a bowling ball appear from a pizza box. Or tearing and restoring a skateboard with a puppy. Whatever. It should be a seriously incredible trick. I would not go creating a half-assed trick with random items just so you could do this larger presentation. Wait until you have a real mindblower that's strong enough to stand on its own, then incorporate it into this performance piece
Part Four: After witnessing a truly strong magical performance, the twist ending transforms the nature of the entire experience. I would not just pull out a prediction at the end and say, "I knew what cards you would name." That's a little too dull and a little too much of a fuck-you to the premise you established. Instead, by making it a wild coincidence (as opposed to a prediction), the other three "movements" still stand on their own within the context of the trick. If you could "predict" what cards they would name (and thus what words you would end up with), then the part where you're brainstorming ideas would just be a nonsensical waste of time. This is not to suggest the audience will really believe in this mail-order magic blueprint company that just happened to send blueprints for an effect that was seemingly created on the spot. They understand it presents the same impossibility as a "prediction." But by not treating it like a prediction or claiming responsibility for it, the integrity of the story of the complete piece makes sense.

Examinability

After the words were picked originally, you have the word-deck in your hand. The four cards are turned over and the sentence is unveiled. You then get up to go get the items mentioned on the backs of the cards. When you're in the garage getting the bike (or whatever), you have all the time in the world to swap out the force deck for a normal 52-card deck (that is similar to the Phil deck in its distinctive quality) that truly does have random words all over the back. You remove from that deck the 4 cards that were named by the spectators. Then when you return to the room, you just place that deck back on the table. As far as the audience is concerned, that deck's purpose was complete minutes ago. So they won't even notice you leaving and returning with it -- it's a completely natural action.

Now this is an incredibly strong convincer after the twist is revealed because they can now pick up the deck and examine everything and nothing is amiss. No other cards would have created that effect or matched the blueprint in the envelope.

You might think they'll think something is up with the 52 cards of a Phil deck. They won't. If the cards are not in a card case, and are just spread around on a table, the deck seems full enough. If anything they will just feel like cheap cards to a spectator. If you're concerned, when you introduce the deck in the beginning you can say you got it from a dollar store, but the cards were too cheap to use regularly so that's why you're writing on the back of them for this trick. But it's not necessary unless you're performing for someone who handles playing cards on a very regular basis. (And just to be clear a Phil deck is not the same thing as a "Double Decker" deck. 52 cards of that type would not withstand handling by the spectators.)

The Non-Phil-Deck Method

This presentation allows you to use a regular deck, if you want. I don't know that I would, but it would be easy enough to and it could almost be handed out for examination -- at least in a more formal performance where audiences tend to give things rather cursory examinations. It would still need to be switched to have a fully examinable deck at the end, but could withstand a brief examination at the beginning.

You have to exercise a bit more control on which card everyone thinks of, but with this presentation, where different cards have different types of words (and you need particular types of words) I think the limitations make sense.

So you say to four people, "In a moment I want you all to think of a value of a card. Not a suit, just a value. I don't want you all to think of the same value because that would be too easy [whatever that means]. So you two, [indicate the people to your left] think of an odd value, and you two think of an even value. We need different types of words. The verbs are on diamonds, so attach your value to a diamond. The adjectives are on hearts. You'll be our adjective person so whatever value you are thinking of make it a heart. [You address these statements to the people on your left.] The nouns are all clubs and spades. So make your card a club, and your card a spade. Got it?"

Then they name the cards they were thinking of and you're ready to go. 

So let's look at the breakdown of the deck and you'll see why it works especially well in this presentation. 

First, there are 28 cards they can't name (even red cards, odd black cards, two jokers), on these 28 cards you will write 28 random words. A mix of nouns, verbs, and adjectives. These cards can be freely shown to your spectator. On the seven odd diamonds you write adjectives, but they should be seven different adjectives that could all apply to the trick. In the example, I used the force word "fiery," imagining an egg vanishing in a flash of fire. But you can easily imagine other words that would apply to that type of trick as well: hot, bright, dangerous, quick. And then you can add some adjectives that just require you to embody a particular attitude: sexy, funny, mysterious. With seven different adjectives we now have 35 cards that can be freely shown. With the four actual force cards/words it's 39. And then if you can think of any synonyms for the nouns and verb you're using (disappear instead of vanish; bike for bicycle; food or breakfast for egg), you can easily have about 42-45 cards that you can freely show. Think of that. You can cleanly display about 80-90% of the deck and yet it will force one very specific trick with four "freely" thought-of cards

Stage Version

This would translate amazingly well to stage. Imagine this. You come out on stage and talk about this creative exercise you used to do with a deck of cards and random objects. And you talk about how much you liked this exercise because it was always challenging and kept you in the moment. And at first you thought of it as more of a mental exercise, but now you realize that it deserves to be put in front of an audience. "These cards can create over 100,000 different trick descriptions. So that means that what you see tonight will not only be a first for you, but it's also a first for me, and because of the randomness it will be a first for anyone ever. A brand new trick that has never been performed anywhere."

Onstage there is a small mass of items. "I asked the stagehands to assemble some items from backstage. We have wigs, pillows, framed posters, a can of beer, instruments, and so on. They also wrote the names of the items on these cards as well." 

You go through the selection procedure and get the sentence: PENETRATE the MANNEQUIN with a UKULELE in a DANGEROUS way. "Hmm, this should be interesting," you say. You sit at a table on stage for a few minutes (yes, actual minutes) just thinking while a live cellist plays for the crowd. After a few minutes you bolt up and start moving things around on stage. Once everything is in place you proceed to penetrate a mannequin with a ukulele while standing on one leg on a skateboard with thumbtacks all over the ground. The audience applauds wildly. 

You step down and accept their applause. Someone comes out and sweeps up the thumbtacks. "Thank you, ladies and gentleman. That means a lot to me. You know, I come from a magic family. My great-great-grandfather was Brooks the Magnificent. And while you might think for a lover of magic like me that would be a blessing, I have actually spent a long time living in his shadow. And Brooks the Magnificent casts a large shadow. My family did not encourage me to practice magic. We are pretty much estranged now. And before we were I was constantly being compared unfavorably to my great-great-grandfather. So to be able to come here and perform something like that -- an original miracle that has never been seen before -- well, that means the world to me.” You start putting the props back on the prop pile. "It's actually almost life-affirming, in a way. My great-great-grandfather was an incredible magician, but not a great man, and the ramifications of that are still being felt in my family today. So to be able to do something he could never dream of accomplishing means so much to me." As you're returning the items one of the poster frames that was leaning against the pile falls backwards on to the floor. For the first time you see the face of the poster.

"What the FUCK?!" you scream.

You hold up the poster to the audience. It's a handsomely painted old-time magic poster that reads, "Brooks the Magnificent presents 'The Amazing Ukulele thru Mannequin Penetration!'" With an old-timey guy in a tux balancing on one leg on a skateboard and penetrating a mannequin with a ukulele while some ghostly spirit looks on approvingly.

The performance ends with you running off stage and the sound of a gunshot behind the curtains.