Gardyloo #2

First I want to wrap up on the discussion of the "coin in hand" or "liar/truth-teller" plot from the past two posts. As I said in my original post, this is far and away the least interesting way of demonstrating your ability to detect lies or read body language. This isn't my opinion, it's just scientific fact. It's the least amount of variables and the "truth" we're trying to establish (which hand holds a coin) could not be less personal or more arbitrary. 

That's not to say that strong routines can't evolve from this premise, I think they can. I think the trick in my last post is very strong. Colin McLeod also has a version of this effect that I believe is called Perfect Prediction, as demonstrated in his Penguin lecture. His version makes it more than a 50/50 effect about the location of a coin. It's a way of predicting essentially anything. When I first played around with it I would email or text the picture below to a friend and before they would look at it I would perform the trick where they would "freely" end up thinking about Oprah skateboarding in front of the leaning tower of Pisa and yelling "Fiddlesticks." Then they would open the text or email to see that it was predicted beforehand. Just as a "proof of concept," the effect worked very well and I've since come up with a couple other variations on his trick that are even stronger for my purposes. So if you're interested in this plot, check out his version. To be completely upfront, his effect uses Hugo Shelley's Sixth Sense gimmick which is $300 (and sold out in most places) so that's probably a consideration. Although it does allow you to do this clever joke, "Which hand is the coin in? Not mine. Because I spent all my money on the Sixth Sense gimmick." Which is a gag laymen will love.

I think the only good impromptu version of this effect -- the only one that doesn't feel like you're reading a page from MindWare - Perplexors: Level A - 48 Logic Puzzles - Great for Helping With Standardized Tests - Challenging and Rewarding - For Grades 3-4 -- is Tequila Hustler by Mark Elsdon. It's the least clunky and you can do it with a number of people at the same time. I would recommend not asking yes or no questions as I mentioned in last Thursday's post. Just let people make statements in accordance with their roles. I think this causes less fuck-ups and it's more interesting for those watching to see if they can determine who's lying and who isn't when they're talking in full sentences, not just saying "yes" or "no."

And finally, I think you really do have to mention why you're trying to figure out something so dull in this effect. The two ways I would go about it is to say that discerning lies is easier the more emotionally significant the subject matter is, so I'm going to challenge myself by trying to figure out who's lying about the most inconsequential things possible: what hand is holding a coin. Or you could use the coin effect as something of a "baseline" reading before transitioning into a subject that is more interesting/relevant. This is similar to the way in which at the beginning of a lie detector test they'll ask you what your name is and to verify the day of the week. These questions establish your responses in low-stress situations. You could do something like, "Is the coin in your right hand? Okay. Have you cheated on your wife?" 


I'm still not quite sure what the posting schedule will be like here for the beginning part of this year. This isn't just me being lazy, I just have to prioritize the writing work I'm involved in which includes these projects:

  1. Any freelance work I'm being paid for.
  2. Writing the Jerx book that comes out later this year.
  3. Writing X-Communication, the monthly review newsletter that goes out to the people who pre-ordered the book during the initial donation period (and those who do a monthly donation via paypal).
  4. Re-writing Amateur at the Kitchen Table, a long essay that will eventually be a small booklet that covers all the aspects of performing in casual/non-professional situations. This will also be going to the people who ordered The Jerx book in the initial donation period and will be available separately as well. 
  5. Then writing posts for this site. 

I'm going to try and keep the posting here pretty regular (at least a few times a week), but just letting you know the other things I have on my plate.


My friend and frequent creative collaborator, Stasia Burrington, painted this amazing Ouija board for me.

It features a death's-head hawkmoth and black hellebore flowers. Stasia is a great person to collaborate with because, while she has her own distinct style, she's fully capable of -- and happy to -- create things in other styles as well.  And I'm pretty thrilled to say that she will be doing the illustrations for The Jerx Book.

Check out some more of her work below...

On Lying - Part Two

The Mark of the Liar

Presentation Part One

On New Years Eve I was at a party of a little over 20 people and I asked them if I could try an "experiment" in human lie-detection. "I just took an online class that was taught by a former FBI investigator and I want to try out some of these techniques," I told them. I asked them to adopt a role in their mind (liar or truth-teller) and to only interact with me in accordance with that role for the next 90 minutes or so. During that time I wouldn't ask them any questions that I already knew the answer to (and if they felt I did, they could just refuse to answer). Everyone was down for this little game, as I knew they would be. (I had been involved with interactive party-games that lasted an entire weekend with many in this group. A group filled with performers and nerds and nerdy performers -- the type of people who like that kind of thing.)

"One of the keys of discerning liars from truth-tellers in a group is playing their interests off of one another. In order to do that you may need to know what role someone else has adopted. You can signal that to each other with a thumbs-down to show you're a liar, or a thumbs-up to show you're a truth-teller. If you are ever signaling to each other what your role is, just make sure my back is turned and that I can't see. You should be honest with each other in regards to your role, but when dealing with me, you should only ever lie or only ever tell the truth depending on the type of person you're choosing to be."  

Once everyone understood, the game was underway. Everyone broke off into their own groups and discussions like at any normal party and I would roam around talking to people in groups or as individuals, asking seeming innocuous questions. "If you had to guess, what's the most peaches you ever ate in a day?" 

"I don't know. Three?"

"Ohhh!!!!" My eyes light up as if this is the most significant thing they could possibly tell me. "Okay. Okay. I get you. Very interesting. Very interesting."

After about 90 minutes of this I started arranging people amongst the two rooms that everyone was mostly gathered in. I asked some people if they'd move to the kitchen for a moment and others if they'd step into the living room. Once everyone was settled I told them that the game was over and I think I was able to identify all the liars from all truth-tellers. I asked them to raise their hand if they had been lying to me. Every person I had ushered into the kitchen raised their hand. Everyone in the living room kept their hands down (well, except for one). That was the first big climax, but it gets better.

Method Part One

Let's pause things here and talk about how I got to this point. So we have 20 people, all of whom are only thinking about whether they're going to play the role of a liar or a truth-teller. To figure out everyone's role we just need to unlock one person at first (by "unlock" I mean "figure out what role they're playing"). To do this we will ask the the classic logic-puzzle question of one person. So the game starts and you start by asking people random questions. "What was the name of your favorite teacher?" "What was the first concert you ever went to?" 

At some point you need to get two people off to the side. They should both be relatively intelligent. Make sure they know each other's roles (turn away while they figure this out). Now you ask one of them this question:

Do you both have the same role?

If he says "yes," the other person is a truth-teller.

If he says "no," the other person is a liar

This is just the way the logic works out regardless if the person you're asking is lying or telling the truth and regardless of what role the other person has. 

So now you know one person's role and you are going to use that knowledge to unlock a few other people (about a quarter of the people you're performing for). But because you know that person's role you don't need to ask the more convoluted logic-puzzle question. You just ask, "Is he a liar?" and point to someone in the group. The person you ask finds out, filters the answer through his role, and you just reverse filter it.

You can also choose to figure out some people without asking liar/truth-teller questions at all. Let's say you know someone is a truth-teller. At some point you ask that person if they like olives and they say yes. Later you ask someone whose role you don't know to find out if that person likes olives. They come back and tell you yes or no and now you know that person's role. 

Keep in mind, this isn't a performance that everyone is watching at the same time. You're weaving in and out of groups and in and out of conversations. Nobody is seeing the full scope of the questions.

Also keep this in mind, only one person is ever asked the logic question. And only 25% of the people are being asked any questions about other people or their roles. You're using that 25% to unlock everyone else, but 75% of people are only asked these random and weird red-herring questions. So at the end, when you separate the truth-tellers from the liars, a full 75% of them are saying things like, "How the hell did he know I was lying about how many peaches I've eaten in a day?"

You might think that it's a weakness that 25% are being asked questions about other party-goers. It's not. I openly referred to these people as "snitches." And I would say things like, "It's one thing to ask you questions and maybe be able to judge if you're telling the truth or not, but it becomes much more difficult when your answer is filtered through a third party who may be lying or telling the truth. That's why in lie detector tests they never ask you about the actions of a third party, because it's much easier to be deceptive about someone other than yourself." (I have no idea if that's true. But no one else does either, so I'm comfortable saying it.)

Don't try and figure out everyone's role immediately. You have an hour or two to do this, and different opportunities will present themselves. Feel free to use other "which hand" or "liar/truth-teller" effects to figure some people out. At one point I picked up a deck of cards, had three cards freely chosen, asked each person if their card was red or black, nodded wisely, then had the cards shuffled back in the deck (retaining them on top) and then just checked the deck a few minutes later to see who was lying and who wasn't.) Integrating something like that means you actually don't have to do the logic-question at all (and honestly I probably wouldn't in the future). You could spend the first 30 minutes just fucking around, then at some point unlock a small group of people with the deck of cards, and then use those people to unlock everyone else. There's a bunch of ways of going about doing this.

Remember, the majority of your questions have nothing to do with anything. They're just there to hide the actual method. So they should be mix of mundane questions:

  • What did you have for breakfast today?
  • Put your fist in your pocket and extend any any number of fingers. Are you holding out three fingers?

These will mix in with and disguise the mundane questions you're using to actually figure out people's roles. 

But then you should ask more intriguing questions too. These will get people talking and laughing and make them forget the questions you're using to figure everything out (or at least blur them together). So questions like:

  • Have you shit your pants in the last year?
  • Have you ever masturbated to the thought of someone in this circle of people?

As you figure out people's roles you can make notes on your phone or in a notebook. That would be completely logical if you were doing it for real. But I actually found it pretty easy to remember people's roles (and I don't consider myself someone with a great memory).

And that's how you find out everyone's role in a group of truth-tellers and liars. But I wouldn't end things there. Let's go back to that night...

Presentation Part Two

The trick has ended. Everyone is discussing it and asking me what clues I was looking for. The one person I didn't correctly identify is giving me a little shit. Some people realize it has to be some sort of trick, others aren't going down that path. I keep my ears open, listening for someone to start hitting upon the method, if they do I will break out the second climax right then. But no one does, so instead I let things go on for a few more minutes. One girl is asking me a lot of questions about the technique and I pull her in close and say, "You want to know a secret? There is no way to tell if a person is lying or telling the truth based on what they say or how they say it. The questions were bullshit. I was just looking for the 'Mark of the Liar.'" I bring her over behind one of the liars who is engaged in conversation with someone and I point to a small black X near his elbow. Then I bring her over to another person and show a small black X on that person's shoulder. She starts laughing as I continue to show her Xs and eventually we're creating enough of a disturbance that people are wondering what's going on. I then "come clean" to them and admit that I can't do "human lie-detecting," and that all the questions were a sham, and I was just trying to get close enough to them to see which people had the "Mark of the Liar." I point out the Xs on some of the liars and then all the liars start looking for them on themselves and each other. Marks are found on necks, wrists, arms and backs. No marks are on the truth-tellers. 

I turn my attention to the girl who was a liar who I didn't identify as one in the initial part of the trick. "Where's your mark?" I asked. She stood up, stretched her arms out, and spun in a circle so we could examine her. Nothing. I lifted her hair to look as close as we could on her neck and behind her ears. Still nothing. She leaned forward a little and flipped her skirt up and flashed her ass at a couple of people. "There it is!" one guy said. And there it was, right at the bottom of her left asscheek, a little black X.

Method Part 2

So this is just Double Cross by Mark Southworth, an effect I wasn't particularly enamored with out of the box. It's a gimmick that allows you to secretly stamp an X on someone. The actual handling of the gimmick never worked well for me. And trying to stamp the X in the exact moment I needed to, in one specific location, was a little sketchy. The gimmick was a little wobbly or something. I don't know. I don't think I read of other people having this complaint, so maybe it was just me. 

But while it didn't work for me in that context, using it to stamp someone anywhere they have exposed flesh, at anytime during the evening, was remarkably easy. I would refresh the ink after a couple applications and then mark my liars when the opportunity presented itself. At a party; especially a New Years Eve party; and especially at a New Years Eve party populated by my overly sentimental, effusive friends; human contact is expected. There's plenty of embracing and back-slapping and putting arms around each other's shoulders. That's just the nature of my friends. But I had a built in touch-excuse as well: the last thing I did was usher the liars into the kitchen. In that action I could easily mark the people I hadn't gotten to yet.

As for the girl with the X on her ass. She was sitting next to me on the couch at one point during the night, and she had one of her legs curled under her. Without her knowing it had pushed up her skirt so the bottom of her bottom was exposed. As I went to stand up my hand brushed against her and placed the X. Before the final revelation it occurred to me that leaving her out of the liar group would add some texture to the ending, and it would "make sense" when her mark was found in a seemingly unseeable location.

There you have it. If I was going to do it again I might try and find a small Y stamp and say it represents a forked-tongue or something. But the idea came to me hours before the party and I didn't have time. 

You can do this sort of thing on a small scale basis too. You could do it with four people and find a secret mark on the liars in the group. With just one or two people to mark you can actually place the mark on them AS you are manhandling them looking for the X. It's definitely more interesting and fun in a large group but I think there's something to consider with a small group as well. Theoretically you could do this shit in a walk-around gig. It's that practical. And it has to be a more compelling finish than, "And there is the coin," right? Or am I just 1000% disconnected from proper magic thought?

Well, whatever. Have a great weekend, my petals! I'll be back on Tuesday. I'm going to be busy this weekend at The Session convention. (I'm Max Maven.)

On Lying - Part One

It's strange to think that the best thing I feel I have to offer to the magic community is the idea that I don't think much like a magician. In most other areas of specialized knowledge this isn't a selling point. "What I like most about my oncologist is he doesn't think like an oncologist," is not something you would hear someone say usually. Unless it was prefaced by, "You know what Todd said to me right before he died?" 

I played around with the "which hand" type of effect and a liar/truth-teller presentation a lot this past month. It is, I think, an effect magicians appreciate much more than non-magicians. In fact, my layman-mind is so disinterested in this trick it turned me off to "body-language" and "lie-detecting" as a premise at all for the past few years.

Think of it this way: The idea here is that you're able to tell when someone is lying based on visual or aural clues. Now imagine you really had that skill. Got it? Okay, now I'm going banish you to live on a mountain cliff where you will subsist only on rainwater and tree moss until you can come up with a less interesting way of demonstrating this skill than determining which hand someone is holding a coin in.

You will die on that cliff. 

We are literally demonstrating a skill in the least interesting way possible. And why? Well, because people have come up with some clever and interesting ways to determine where the coin is and/or if someone is lying or telling the truth. Clever in method. Interesting to the performer. The audience is just a cog in the process that we're using to keep ourselves entertained.


First, let's look at a procedural issue with this type of trick.

In a lot of these effects the audience is expected to either consistently lie or consistently tell the truth about certain things. I found that people would often get tripped up with yes or no questions if they were supposed to lie all the time. Their life, up until this point, has been about satisfying people with timely and accurate responses to questions. And that's so ingrained in them that -- even when they know they're supposed to lie about everything -- if someone says, "Is the coin in your right hand?" their first instinct is often just to spit out the truth. So I found this happening a lot:

Me: Is the coin in your right hand?

Them: Yes... [pause] Oh, wait, no! No... it's not.

To combat this I would tell them to slow down and take a few seconds to answer the question, but I didn't really like that. I didn't want to seem to be playing any role in how much time they were taking to respond to me.

I found that the best way to handle the situation is not to ask yes or no questions in the first place. Instead I would say something like this, "I want you to keep your role in mind [liar or truth-teller] and when you're ready I want you to tell me which hand holds the coin in a manner consistent with your role." They would take a beat and say, for example, "The coin is in my left hand." This is the same as me saying, "Is the coin in your right hand?" and them answering "No." But it has the advantage that nobody ever fucks it up, and it gets the spectator to put the sentence in their own words which gives you more to work with when you "analyze" their response for lies.


Listen to this podcast. It's 13 minutes and it will give you some ideas for putting your liar/truth-teller routine in a context that's more interesting than "which hand is holding the coin." 


In my next post I will tell you how I turned the liar/truth-teller effect into a New Year's Eve party game, greatly reduced the "logic puzzle" aspect of the methodology, and added a denouement that redefined the nature of the effect and blew everyone's minds out their buttholes.

Project Slay-Them: The Groundwork

In general the email correspondence I get comes from two different groups.

The first group is people like Andi Gladwin and Joshua Jay.

Closeted homosexuals?

No. That's not what I mean.

Like, dudes who co-founded a business so they have an excuse to spend a ton of time together without their wife/girlfriend getting suspicious? 

No, no. Look, you're taking this in a completely different direction-

Oh, I know. Rabid analingus fans? Like absolutely insatiable dookie freaks? 

NO! Stop and listen to me. What I mean is that the first group of people I hear from frequently is professional magicians -- people who make their living performing and creating magic effects. This, of course, isn't a huge portion of the population, but it's a large percentage of the people who would have any interest in my site.

The second group of people I hear from a lot are people who don't perform at all. They don't want to be associated with "magicians" and just enjoy reading about it, practicing it, and maybe performing for other amateurs like themselves. I used to be very much in that group myself.

I think this group is pretty large. In fact, I'm beginning to think that very, very few people who aren't performing professionally ever actually show someone a trick.

While I was on a partial break from writing last month, Penguin magic released this trick

The effect is nice. The method is workable in theory. The only problem with the trick is that you could never actually perform it for someone. And the fact that no one has mentioned this is one of those things that makes me think nobody is really actually performing this trick anywhere (or performing most tricks anywhere -- there's nothing unique about this one). I'm sure people have performed this trick for their friends in magic, or their significant other who they perform all their stuff for, and you can certainly do it on a demo video where you have people playing the role of a spectator (I'm not saying their reactions are fake. I just mean people behave much differently when a camera is on them than they do when there isn't one on them.) 

Here is how this trick would play out if you tried to perform it in a casual situation for someone other than your magic test-audience.

You: I'd like to try something with you with this deck of tarot cards.

Them: Neat. Let me see. [Holding out their hand.]

You: Uh, err, uhm, uhhhh... I uh... you can't uhm... you see... I uhm... well... it's just that... I uhm.

I've performed plenty of tricks with tarot cards for friends and acquaintances and people I've just met. In every case where I introduce them, people want to take a look at the deck. They're either familiar with tarot cards, so they want to take a look at this particular deck, or they're unfamiliar with Tarot cards, so they want to take a look at the deck. The only people who don't want to take a look at the deck are your magician friends and your wife who are familiar with the rhythms of watching tricks. "Oh, I don't look at one of his props unless it's offered to me -- that's how this works." They know that, but that is NOT how the rest of the world operates. Especially when you're trying to show something in a casual situation and not in a "Gather 'round everyone, the show is about to start" situation. 

"But, Andy, I've performed this for people and they don't have any interest in looking at the cards." That's very embarrassing for you. If I showed someone an object that I wanted them to take some interest in (like a tarot deck) and they just gave a half-hearted glance at it, I would pull one of these...

because that is a sure sign of indifference on their part. In fact, if you're one of those guys who can never tell if a girl is interested in him, try this tip: bring out something that has some inherent interest, it can be a tarot deck, a snowglobe, or just a picture on your phone. Express to the girl that this item has some meaning to you -- "this is my favorite snowglobe" or "you've got to see this picture of my niece." If the girl looks at it briefly and says, "That's nice," then you're sunk. A person who is interested in you OR in what you're showing them will take the object and give it a closer look. It's human nature. If you take out a tarot deck and the person couldn't give less of a shit about it, then they're not interested in you or the deck. That's bad news.

"Audience management. That's your problem, Andy. You don't have audience management skills. Sure they'll want to examine the deck, but you have to manage the audience so they don't get to." This is the type of thing you hear on the Cafe when someone complains that something can't be examined. "Audience management" is a phrase that is thrown around the most by dumb people, like "horsey sauce" or "make America great again." If "audience management" means to deny or ignore someone's interest or curiosity in an object I'm presenting to them that was intended to gain their interest or curiositythen yeah, I don't have that particular skill. And I don't want it because it's completely self-serving horse-shit. It's 100% illogical. I can "audience manage" my way around letting them examine a deck of cards in a poker routine, or a pad of paper that holds an impression device, because those are not things I'm putting undo attention on. But if you do a trick with something inherently interesting or where an item undergoes some kind of transformation, then the audience needs to be able to at least give it a cursory examination or the trick is worthless in an informal close-up situation. Otherwise you have this situation: "Here's something I'd like you to show some interest in. OH FUCK NO, NOT THAT MUCH INTEREST!" It's one of those contradictions that put people off of magic, even if they don't understand exactly why.

That's not to say the Past, Present, Future trick is bad. It would be great to do over facetime or a webcam. You could also do it in a formal show where the spectator doesn't expect to have the freedom to handle the props like they would in an informal presentation. My point is not to denigrate the trick. This was just a long tangent to suggest that because no one had seemed to mention what is a foundational flaw in the structure of this trick (in most performing situations), I took that as more evidence that people aren't really performing these things. I would not be surprised if 90% of the effects purchased and practiced are never performed for anyone outside of people's typical "practice audience."

If that sounds like you, then get ready, because 2016 is going to be the year you start performing again. That is your magic resolution for this year. 

I was like you. I would work on routines for my own enjoyment and then show some to my magic buddies occasionally. If I had something really great, then I might show a sibling or my girlfriend. And I almost looked at the people who did perform a lot as corny. Performing tricks was the least interesting part of magic to me, and I think that's true for a lot of you. But I've done a complete 180 on that now. I now think the really lame thing to do is just practice these tricks for yourself or show them to one or two people or your magic buddies. It would be like putting 100s of hours into studying massage and then just sitting on your floor rubbing your own thigh for hours on end. That is not the purpose of this hobby. 

The reason you don't want to be the type of person who shows other people tricks regularly is because the type of person who is naturally inclined to do that is usually a needy, awkward, weirdo. And because you don't want to project that image, you keep your performances to yourself and your inner-circle. So what we've done is left the performance of amateur magic -- done in the real world for regular people -- to the worst of us. 

Let's change that. 2016 is going to be devoted to easing you back into performing magic for others, specifically friends, family, acquaintances, co-workers, or anyone you're stuck spending some length of time with. I'm not going to pressure you to go to the mall and approach strangers and show them a trick. This isn't a contest to win a black tiger deck from Ellusionist. It's just about getting you non-performers slightly out of your comfort zone and showing you some opportunities you might be able to capitalize on to show interested people some magic. That's all. I know you think showing people tricks can be intrusive, but that's because you're so used to seeing it done poorly. 

The first step is this: Amass a repertoire of tricks that you enjoy performing and that can be done impromptu. There's no hurry to do this. Go back through your magazines, books, and DVDS and find the tricks you like and work on adding one trick to your repertoire each week. At the end of this year you'll have 52 tricks in your working impromptu repertoire. Enough to effortlessly slide into one should the opportunity present itself. Not many, if any, of these should be cards tricks. Your card trick repertoire should be a separate thing. Think things like: pocket change, bills, cellphones, rings, pens, keys, rubber-bands, headphones, business cards, gum, and things you might find in a coffee shop (or, if you don't spend time in coffee shops, then things you might find in a location you do spend a bit of time in).  

Keep track of these effects in a spreadsheet or a notebook. Something you can edit easily is best. Don't duplicate effects. If you have ten ways to vanish a coin, then choose the best one. If you have a trick where something drawn on a bill changes in some way, and you find a similar one that you think is better, then douche out the old one. Keep all the props you need to practice these effects in a small box so you can run through them all in a quick sitting once a week. Don't worry about adding more than one trick per week to this subset of your material, that's a fine pace. Eventually you'l have 50 or so and for the rest of your life you can just replace the weakest trick in your impromptu repertoire when you find a better one to include.

I know that seems like a lot of tricks to have in just your impromptu repertoire, and it is. But the idea is to have enough different tricks to give you a wide range of connections so that when you want to show someone a trick you have a number of ways to get into an effect. Knowing a lot of tricks, that use a wide variety of objects, that have different premises, and demonstrate different powers, is going to allow you to be a nimble performer and allow you to get into an effect that seems relevant to the conversation or the situation with ease. And in a way that doesn't feel intrusive, or manipulative, or desperate (which is what it feels like when you try to force that one-trick you really want to perform into the interaction). It's like knowing jokes. If you know 50 jokes on a wide-range of subjects you can usually find one that will fit into any conversation. If you only know your one farmer joke, then you sit around desperately trying to get the conversation around to farming, or you jam your farming joke into a conversation that it doesn't belong and everyone is like, "This pathetic tard with another fucking farmer joke, good christ!"

As the year progresses we will talk about various ways of getting into these effects, who to perform for and who not to, how to get people to ask to see something, how to indicate you perform magic without wearing a wizards hat and a card tie. Things like that. For those of you who already perform regularly, this project might be superfluous. If you don't, then I hope it will inspire you to get out there and use these skills you've been honing for their intended purpose.  

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, friends!

I hope you are all enjoying time with your loved ones, even if that just means time by yourself because you can't stand everyone else.

Did you watch the Scott Alexander Christmas special/lecture on Penguin? I like this tradition of Penguin's. My favorite part of this year's installment was when Scott was explaining how this bottomless cup-insert was specially designed not to displace liquid when put into a cup. And then he puts it into the cup and it splashes liquid all over his hand and the floor.

This was 10 times funnier than any of the bits he and Dan Harlan had worked out. But still, I have great affection for all that corny stuff as well.

The real highlight was -- after Scott had explained that you might want to use popcorn salt for the salt pour because it's finer than table salt -- some brain-dead idiot wrote in to ask, "Can you do the salt pour with Skittles?" Sure, I mean, you could probably fit 12 Skittles in a salt pour gimmick. What could be more magical than you dumping a dozen skittles on the floor? Once again the "interactive" element of these online lectures produces no insights other than making it clear that the functionally retarded can operate twitter and skype.

I will be taking the rest of the year off to be with friends and family and to move my stuff out of my place. I will see you all in 2016.

Coming in 2016

- The release of Amateur at the Kitchen Table and The Jerx Vol. 1.
- Is this the year I get too much pussy? It might well be because... WE'VE LOCATED THE WINE BOTTLE FULL OF SEXY PLASTIC TRICKS! And I'm going to go out and unleash them on the unsuspecting women of America.
- The launch of G.L.O.M.M., something you should all be excited about because you are all a part of it. (Well, almost all of you.)
- Project: Slay Them - A series of posts for those of you who write me and say, "I like your site, but I never actually perform magic anymore." These posts will include a series of exercises designed to get you out and showing people magic in a manner that isn't obtrusive, cheesy, or needy. 
- Many more tricks, essays, dumb videos and shit-stirrings as the greatest magic site in the world steamrolls on.
 

MCJ Advent Calendar - Day Twenty-Four - A Christmas Poem

And with this post we end the Jerx 2015 Advent Calendar. I hope you've enjoyed this look back. It's sad that it has to end. But look! Up in the sky! It's the first lonely virgin of winter! The cycle continues, and so will this site.

For our final Advent Calendar post you should know that Tannen's is the last of the big magic stores here in NYC. In the early 2000s it was a real shithole. They never had anything in stock and the people demonstrating the products only knew like 4 tricks from the 70s. Since I wrote the post that follows, Tannen's was sold and now it's a pretty decent place to shop if you're in the city. But in 2003 the only purpose it served was as inspiration for my Christmas poem: The Worst Christmas Eve Ever (Locked in Tannen's With Steve Brooks)

Monday, December 22, 2003

Mixing and Mingling (In a Jinglin' Beat) 

It's that time again. That magical time of year when the magic of the season overwhelms everyone with good cheer and magical wonder of the magic nature inherent in this magical time of magicness. Aaahhhhh...magic.

Okay, in relative seriousness, I truly hope any and all readers of this site have a good holiday season. With any luck you'll be looking at some time off from work (unless you're a ballologist, in which case there is no time to rest), and you'll have some free time to devote to your family and this hobby that I take a dump on all the time.

I'd like to thank everyone who has written over the short period of time this site has been around. If it wasn't for the feedback I receive, I probably would have abandoned the site long ago, and somebody else would be have carried on the idea and garnered all the fame and fortune. (Like Robert O'Neill and that feces scale I had always intended to make.)

So here's a little holiday gift for my readers (I would have liked to send you all feces scales but the cost was prohibitive). In the tradition of "'Twas the Night Before Christmas," here is my own bit of rhyming verse I simply call...

The Worst Christmas Eve Ever (Locked In Tannen's With Steve Brooks)

I saw him walking down the street
And I followed him because
His stomach was so big and round
I thought he was Santa Clause

It was late on Christmas Eve
When I followed his gigantic rump
He snuck into Tannen's Magic
And I thought, "No, not this dump."

It wasn't Santa, I soon found out
Much to my chagrin
Just me and Steve Brooks in Tannen's
And it seemed we were locked in

He said, "I'm getting hungry."
And his stomach began to quake
He broke a glass display case
And ate a sponge production cake

He ate an effect called "Club Sandwich"
And a rubber chicken too
He said, "I'm finished eating food.
Now what I want is you."

He said, "Let's turn this magic shop
into Sodom and Gomorrah.
Come over here and tit-fuck me
And jizz on my fedora."

He had his way with me that awful night
And now I can't forget him
The memories will last forever
If not the bloody rectum