Hey, can anyone parse this sentence: These are exactly the type of cards JB Rhine may have used in his famous psychic experiments at Duke University!
I can't wrap my head around it. Does it require multiple universes/timelines to make sense?
This is a small thing. But, like the Elmsley Count issue in this post, it bothers me when I see it and I think it's an easy fix.
I find a lot of people perform David Williamson's Striking Vanish so it looks like this.
Tap once. Tap twice. And it vanishes on the third.
That's fine and all, but I think it's a mistake to do the two little practice taps before the actual vanish. I'm guessing the reason people do it is because it helps them get in the rhythm they feel they need for a kinetic vanish such as this. But the problem with it is, no matter how skilled you are, you have to do something different on the third tap or the coin would remain where it is, as it did in the first two. And the fact you have to move your hands differently than you did in the preceding taps draws attention to the fact that you're breaking the pattern you've established (the pattern you've unnecessarily established).
I almost can't even intentionally do it as bad as many people do. Watch this dude try and do it. And he thinks he's good enough to teach it.
One tap. Two taps. FISHYMOVE! vanish.
To me it looks more like what you're actually doing than what you're pretending to be doing (which is almost never a good thing in magic).
I do think it's a good idea to establish the idea that the coin is going to vanish when you tap it, but instead of doing two practice taps on the coin and then a different looking tap to vanish it, I tap somewhere else. "The coin will vanish when I tap it," I might say, tapping the air in front of me. Then I do the striking vanish. Because I haven't established a pattern/rhythm of tapping the coin, there's no pattern or rhythm to be broken.
If the GIFs aren't clear, here's the raw video with one version following the other.
Speaking of looping around like a möbius strip, this is a pretty clever way to start a blog post.
So, I think I've settled on a title for the book. It's going to be The Jerx Vol. 1. I just like the implied threat in that title.
Speaking of the book, I was just doing the rewrite and update for the trick, The Passion of Donny Ackerman, where you supposedly stop time in order to read the contents of a billet, make a sandwich, and check out your spectator's rack. I think a new release that could be added to that effect is Thought Jump by Patrick Redford. In this instance I would remove the visual aspect of that effect. So you place a billet -- that has a clearly marked top and bottom side-- top-side up under an opaque cup and the spectator puts her hand on top. You go through the effect, the spectator feels a tingle on her hand and when she lifts the cup the billet is now turned over. The implication being that you stopped time, lifted the cup, read the billet, and put it back down the other side up.
I probably won't add this to the effect myself, because I'm pretty happy with it as it stands now. But I do think it's worthwhile to consider what visual effects might also be good by removing the visual element. In other words, just show them where things start and where things end up. Remove the visual step and let their imagination fill in the gap. I'm not saying it's always better that way, but sometimes it is. This is how I almost always do a haunted deck effect (as described here) and I think it gets better reactions. Well... maybe not better, but different. I think it's more mysterious. If I showed you a deck of cards I could set on the table and it would unfold itself and flip and flop its way into the shape of a card castle, that would be a pretty great trick to see.
But it would also be great to not see. If it's the two of us alone in a room and we set the deck of cards on the table and then turned our backs to it and then turned back a minute later and there was a card castle there, that might even feel more magical.
I'm not saying "visual" effects aren't good. In most cases they're preferable. But with some effects I think it's madness not to at least consider leaving the visuals to the spectator's imagination.
Speaking of madness, it's March Madness here in the U.S., the 68 team college basketball tournament. If you'd like to predict the winner for one of the games, I have a pretty good option. Joe Mckay alerted me to a method for predicting the winner of the Super Bowl (but it can be used for any sporting event). It's a Richard Himber effect that's in Karl Fulves' Big Book of Magic Tricks. Go here and enter "super bowl" in the search field on the left then click the preview with the heading that says "How to Predict the Super Bowl."
It's a clever method. Unfortunately, if you've ever done something like this where you predict a binary sort of thing like the winner of a game, you'll find that people are somewhat underwhelmed. I mean, a random guess will be right 50% of the time and an educated guess should be right considerably more often. So, big deal, right? I mean, it would almost be more fun to show them the method than take credit for guessing one out of two. But there are two ways you can make this much more impressive.
Method 1: If you're at a gathering with a bunch of people you can bet everyone in the place that you've predicted the game and give them 10 to 1 odds. So if they bet $20 they could win $200 in return. And you make bets with everyone there. At certain parties or bars/pubs, this type of thing would go over extremely well. And when it comes to the revelation and you have a chance of making like $500 or losing $5000, that will be an exciting, tense, satisfying moment, even though it is still only a 1 in 2 shot.
Method 2: On the back of your prediction you're going to set up the same dual prediction. So it looks like this.
When the event is over you will reveal your prediction of the winner. After you do you will now echo what the spectator is thinking. "Of course," you say, "that might not be the most impressive thing in the world. It's a 1 in 2 guess. That's why I predicted the score too." And you turn the card around to show the score which you've nail-written in on both sides of the dash as you discuss the lackluster-ness of just predicting the winner. Yes, you lose the ability of just handing the prediction to someone to remove, but you get a much more impressive effect that is methodologically and narratively sound. You can immediately pull out a correct prediction (which takes the heat off the nail-writing moment, because they don't know more is to come) and follow it up with an even stronger correct prediction. The second prediction seems to anticipate their potential underwhelm with the first, and because it's all filled in except the score you can complete the two-sided prediction with minimal monkeying around.
Speaking of monkeying around, this Vine video was pretty popular last week.
While his* reaction is great, it's his initial look that I find the funniest. We've probably all tried to show people a trick and received this kind of reception as we were getting into it.
I think sometimes non-professional (and probably professionals too) get unnerved by skeptical spectators, but I don't mind a skeptical audience. Many times they are a shitty backpalm away from having a monkey-style freakout. As long as they're bringing some kind of energy, good or bad, to the experience, you can usually get a strong reaction from them. It's the indifferent people that are truly a bummer to perform for, and I genuinely avoid them altogether.
* I don't know why I said "his" reaction. I have no clue if this monkey is male or not.
Speaking of "male or not," is the US mail the best way to send stuff internationally or not? If you have experience shipping stuff internationally from the US let me know any tips you might have. I was pricing shipping options for my book and it was like, "Oh, if you want to do priority mail for a book of this size to Australia it will be $70." I suppose 1st class international is a more reasonable option, but it can take up to a few weeks. I just want to know if there's some option I haven't considered. I don't want a bunch of angry international readers who had to wait because their book was on the slow boat and then they take it out on me -- find me at a convention and beat the shit out of me, twist my body and shove my head up my ass until I'm looped around like a möbius strip.
["Friends of The Jerx" is where I highlight people who have contributed to this site, the projects they're involved in, or the subjects they're interested in.]
Friend of the site, Jean-Thomas Sexton, has just released the first volume in what he foolishly thinks will be a monthly online video project called Snake Magic Monthly. I know what you're thinking, "Sweet Christ, do we really need another project devoted to magic you can do with your pet snake? I've read Addercadabra. I've read Aspercadabra. I've read Abradacobra. I've got more versions of Three Card Monte Python than I can shake my ding-dong at. I'll pass." Don't worry, friends, this is not another tired project devoted to "snake magic," but something much more exciting: magic with playing cards! I've been saying since forever that people should do magic with these things. Am I spelling that right? Playing cards? Is it cards or cerds? (I've only heard it spoken.) Either way, it's clear from this first issue that Jean-Thomas is a very capable card (cerd) magician.
For $6.66 you get an 11-minute, no frills video. (Keep that in mind if frills are your thing.) It's shot in the type of environment where I imagine most magicians spend their time: an empty room with bare white walls, industrial carpeting on the floor, and the only adornment is a half-scale model of R2-D2. I've seen snuff films set in less depressing locations.
In those 11 minutes, Jean-Thomas teaches versions of three classic card effects tied together into a chilled-scrotum-tight set. In fact, that's what I liked most about this download, the thinking that went into the routining of these effects together. Everything is bound together so the first and second effect falsely reinforce conditions for the final effect. And that final effect, Pavlov's Cat, is my favorite one. It's what everyone has been begging for, another ace assembly, but the vanish of the aces is so convincing (and so well set up during the previous effects) that it fooled me pretty good when I watched it.
I'm a big supporter of anyone trying anything new or different in the current magic landscape. I liked it when Penguin started doing weekly online-lectures, I liked the idea behind the Real Secrets project, and I love this site called The Jerx which is redefining magic. So I would encourage you to check out the first issue of Snake Magic Monthly if you have the dough to spend, especially if you're into card magic (and you do need a decent foundation in card magic to understand the download). You may find some material, some moves, or a new voice in magic that you enjoy and you'll know to hop onto future issues. Worst case scenario is that it's not for you and you're out 6 bucks. What can you get for 6 bucks these days? A blow job? Wait...really? Where do you live?
Yes! It's finally happening! No more atomic wedgies and holding me by my ankles to dip my head in the toilet. I'm finally going to get some respect as a magician. When I mistakenly vanish a banana instead of a bandana, people are going to recognize that what I'm doing is a rare and valuable art form and a national treasure. Don't believe me? Well they're going to have to because it's practically going to be the law, you fucking dummies. U.S.A.!U.S.A.! M.A.G.I.C.! M.A.G.I.C.!
Finally, I won't have to keep trying to convince people that what I'm showing them is worthwhile. They will simply be able to look up the legislation that says it is. Because that's how you know you're really respected as an art form, when you have to try and mandate that people show it some respect.
"Bu-bu-bu-but Andy, what evidence do you have that magic is a national treasure and a rare and valuable art form?" Oh, gee, I don't know. Why don't you read the text of that resolution and find out? What's the problem? Afraid of having your mind blown by the amazing contributions magic has made to society? Go ahead and read it. When you're done you'll be like, "Uhm, can someone tell me why we teach science in school and not magic?"
Here are just some of the important contributions magic has made to this country and the world:
-- Did you know that out of the millions of people David Copperfield has performed for, one of them took a dance class after seeing his show. It's true!
-- Did you know that the mayor of a Texas city uses magic to teach elementary school students about the different roles and responsibilities of local government? Now that sounds like some compelling stuff. And it certainly should be singled out as representative of the heights of what the art can achieve.
-- Did you know Leonardo da Vinci co-wrote a magic book? Well, that's because he didn't. His friend wrote it. But that's practically co-writing it.
-- Did you know Arthur C. Clarke once wrote a sentence with the word magic in it? The sentence isn't about magic. It's intended to be a commentary on technology. But still though, that's pretty impressive. Out of all the words in the world, he mentioned magic.
Yes, these are the examples that were chosen from the past few centuries of magic to suggest that magic is a vibrant, thriving, and important art form. What other conclusion could you draw? Did I mention the girl who took dance lessons after seeing a Copperfield show? I did? Okay, just wanted to make sure.
My hope is that this resolution passes and that we can finally, FINALLY, get the respect we deserve. It will be so meaningful to have it written into a resolution. So much better than actually earning it. It's like when you're in 4th grade and you send out your birthday invitations and no one replies so your dad calls the parents of all the kids in your class and makes them promise to come and offers to give them money to spend on a present. You know, an organic showing of appreciation like that.
I'm so happy Washington D.C. is finally focusing on the important things. Make Magic Great Again! Forgetful Freddy for U.S. Senate! The bill in lemon should be a law in lemon!
[This is the second in a series of posts for people who would like to perform for people more but don't. If you're not in that category then some of this advice won't apply to you.]
If you don't perform much for people, maybe you think showing magic to people outside the context of an actual show would seem annoying or awkward or corny or like you're desperate for attention. You're absolutely right. It does seem that way very often.
But this is not something that's unique to magic. If you walked up to someone and said, "Hey, how are you doing? Mind if I sing a song for you? A-may-zing graaaaaaaace.... how sweeeeet the sounnnnddd... that saaaaved aaaaa wretch like....ah-MEEEEeeeEEeeEEE!!!" And closed your eyes, put one index finger in your ear and the other one towards the heavens, that too would come off as annoying, awkward, corny, and desperate for attention. If you asked someone if you could juggle for them, recite a monologue for them, or tap dance for them, you would get a similar response that people give when you ask to perform magic. You see this response frequently in online demos where the magician is performing for "regular people." And you can tell the person has acquiesced to watch the trick only because it would be more awkward to say no.
I bring this up because I think some of us get hung up on it being a little goofy to perform magic for people when you're at a party or at a bar or something. But actually it's a little goofy to perform anything in those situations. What we need to concern ourselves with is removing the "performance" aspect of showing magic in casual situations. We don't need to remove magic altogether. This is something we will explore more in future posts, but it's a foundational idea of getting out there and doing more magic in casual settings so it's something I want you to keep in mind as you go through this series.
In the initial post in the series I wrote about establishing a large repertoire of impromptu tricks by adding a new trick to your mental file every week for the next year. If you're playing along, you should have about 10 tricks right now that you are rehearsing regularly and would feel comfortable sliding into if the opportunity presented itself.
The next step is to look at the items you carry everyday or could conceivably choose to carry and catalog the ones that can be used in an effect. If you're carrying something anyway, there's no reason not to have an effect or two you can do with it. I'm not talking about having a wallet full of packet tricks or a pocketful of gimmicked coins. This is just about being smart about utilizing the things you would have on you anyway. The purpose of this is not so you can go into a 20-trick long show just with the items in your pockets. The purpose is that by having a number of tricks ready to go at all time you will find yourself with many more opportunities to organically get into a trick. And this goes towards what I mentioned above about making things seem less like a "performance" and avoiding the weirdness associated with that.
If we're hanging out and you say, "I keep losing my keys," I can effortlessly slide into an effect with keys, an effect where something appears on my key ring, an effect where things vanish and reappear, or an effect where your memory seems to be affected in some way. And I can get into those effects seemingly based on you bringing up the subject. All I need to say is, "Yeah, I hear that. You'll appreciate this..." And while you'll eventually realize it's a trick, it feels natural because you were the one who brought up the subject.
If I don't have a broad range of effects to pull from then you can say, "I keep losing my keys," and I have to follow it up with, "Did I tell you about the time I played 3 card monte in New York City?"
Another benefit to having a wide repertoire of effects with the items that you carry is that it puts a little psychological pressure on you in a way. You're going to feel dumb walking around with a headful of tricks that you're constantly prepared for and never actually doing any.
So take a look at the items below, see which ones you carry with you everyday, and learn a trick you can do with it.
Now, this is all about outer preparation. You've got a utility belt, like Batman, except it's invisible to those around you and is composed of everyday objects that you can go into numerous effects with when you're seemingly "unprepared."
The final step in this post is about inner preparation. I think it's valuable for everyone, but especially for people who don't perform much because they get anxious when they do. You need to imagine approaching people with a different mindset than you may have considered in the past. You can't think, "I'm going to fool this person," or, "I'm going to impress this person with this trick." You can't even think, "I'm going to entertain this person," or, "I'm going to give this person the gift of magic." These are things you can't control. Your mindset should be, "I'm going to perform this trick the best I can because I'm curious to see how this person will react to it." Your goal isn't to evoke something from them, you're just collecting reactions. There is no failure in this activity. Even if you mess up the trick you still get to observe their reaction. "They noticed when I dropped the palmed coin," is still a valid observation. The benefit of this is it will free you from getting hung up on needing a particular reaction and worrying if you are or aren't getting it.
I don't generally check the metrics of this site. I could not be less concerned about the numbers. As Austin Kleon writes in his book, Show Your Work:
And the metrics only measure eyeballs, not hearts.
One of the few metrics I used to like to read on my old site was what search terms led people to the site. Not because I wanted to optimize SEO or any of that nonsense. It was just funny.
These days it seems like you can't see what search query people used to get to your site. I think (correct me if I'm wrong). If I look in the metrics it will say "(not provided)" for most of the search-engine generated traffic to this site. Only maybe 1 in 100 times will it tell me what people actually searched for (and I don't really know why it does when it does).
And that's unfortunate because the search queries that do get reported are outstanding. Let's take a look at the most recent figures...
Happy to see "audience-centered magic" get its own tag on BoingBoing.
Mini-Book Update: Just finished the new write-up for the oldest effect in the book, Pale Horse and Rider. This adds two phases to a Michael Weber idea that involves the use of a hand-drawn Ouija board. It may have been the trick that convinced me that a more unbelievable presentation is significantly more interesting to the spectator than the standard mentalism presentation. And that shifting the power away from yourself draws people in.
Also, it's a routine that, if you play it seriously, has a moment that can cause people to pee their pants a little.
A reader emailed me to suggest that introducing a deck of cards into the Time Traveler's Toilet, made the whole thing seem like just a magic trick. He's right, but that isn't my concern for that particular trick. As I wrote to him:
When a trick is overtly stupid and silly, I'm not concerned with everything being 100% rational.
In most of the tricks I like, the gift you're giving the audience is the feeling of something incredible happening and it seeming real in that moment. And in those cases you don't want to do anything that detracts from the reality you're establishing.
But when you say, "I have a toilet where anything you flush goes back in time," there is no way to make that feel real in any respect. They know from the get-go that everything is a trick. So now realism takes a back seat and I just want to do the strongest trick I can given the circumstances. I did consider a more "organic" solution (flipping through a magazine, letting a subscription card fall out, and doing it with a torn and restored subscription card) but it's not as fooling. And in this effect what makes it good is the dichotomy between the strength of the trick and the stupidity of the trick.
Schedule
New posts Monday-Friday, the first three weeks of every month.
"What is this site?" Click here.
"What is The GLOMM?" Click here.
A Glossary of terms used here.
© 2015-2024 thejerx.com
