If you have the Jerx App, check out the instruction page for a new use for the app called Little Professor. This is a usage that reader Steven Keyl came up with and it replaces a standard magic/mentalism item in a way that I think is much cleaner and more convincing than the traditional prop.
Daniel Madison has released what looks like an incredibly tedious project where he goes through and explains shit from Erdnase. It's called Madison x Erdnase and you can get it on Ellusionist. You know, if you're, like, in one of those Brewster's Millions situations where you need to get rid of a bunch of money and you're completely undiscriminating about what you buy.
But what has everyone's nuts in a coin-purse is that he says this:
"I'm better than Erdnase, and I can prove it."
OOOhhhh... why!? Why, Daniel? Why must you insult our beloved Erdnase?
Now, here's the thing... is Daniel Madison better than Erdnase? I would hope so. Erdnase blows. The book certainly has some value as a historical document, but the tricks in that book are a dreary mess and the writing is completely lifeless.
Yeah, but is he better as a gambler/card cheat than Erdnase was?
Well, I wouldn't be surprised. Watch anyone else's project on Erdnase, or watch them teach a move that's taught in EATCT and they'll often say, "This is how it's taught in Erdnase, but here is how I do it." The implication being that they're better than Erdnase. Or at least know better than Erdnase.
The evolution of the art and science of magic/sleight-of-hand should suggest a lot of us are better than people practicing it 100+ years ago. We have the benefit of their experience to build on. That's not a dismissal of their contributions, it's an acknowledgement of them.
If you love Erdnase, then you should love Daniel Madison too. They're pretty much the same thing: monotonous, pretend gamblers. I doubt either of them played a hand of cards with anyone other than their grandma in their entire lives. The only difference between the two is Daniel dresses like he's an extra in a period-piece drama that takes place in Williamsburg, Brooklyn circa 2007.
If you're turned off by the advertising for this set, just remember you're probably not their target audience. Look at his goofy fake apology he posted on youtube. It's like he's Ric Flair cutting a promo. He's doing a pre-pubescent's idea of a tough guy. Which goes along with the ad copy for the book which is directed at 14-year-olds with self-esteem/confidence issues. It's a bunch of words that are supposed to sound meaningful but read like gibberish to anyone who graduated 8th grade. It's very reminiscent of the ad-copy for this edition of Erdnase that I commented on back in 2015.
There's almost nothing compelling that you can say about Erdnase as a product (as opposed to as a piece of history) so you just have to kind of spout nonsense. I feel bad for whoever had to try and come up with this garbage.
I think I'll study the 8 hours over the course of "decades." Two seconds a day for 40 years is about my speed with this sort of thing.
Does no one at Ellusionist own a red pen? "This challenges the norm we've chosen to accept." Is the first thing you cross out with a note saying, "This means absolutely nothing. I get that we're trying to imply there's something new or revolutionary here, and we can't just say 'Daniel Madison is out of ideas so he's hitting the public domain magic books to see if there's anything he can scrounge up there,' but certainly we can find something more meaningful than this shit, right?"
"Disguised in the Erdnase palette"? I don't think that means what you think it means. And I'm pretty confident saying that because it doesn't mean anything, so if you think it means something you're mistaken. Those words aren't intended to go together.
"[T]his smooth green collector's box invites the fingertips." Finally! My fingertips have been longing for the welcoming feel of "smooth" for far too long.
This is how little there is to say about the contents of this set. They're all like... "Uhhhh... well... don't forget to mention how smooth the box is!"
"Surprise is in the opening, value is in the owning." And "copywriter" is not in the job description of whoever wrote this. I'm available, Ellusionist. Thejerx@gmail.com.
Oh, and it should be "its predecessor."
Resting "weightlessly"? The fuck are you talking about? Ah, yes, finally the incorporeal version of Expert at the Card Table you've always wanted.
And a custom foreword? Ooh-la-la, you mean a foreword written specifically for that book? Those are my favorite types of forewords! So much better than those generic forewords you sometimes get. You know, like the one at the start of Moby Dick
Foreword
This is a book. There are pages and a cover. Read the pages one-by-one until there are no more pages.
You can put this on a bookshelf or in a bookcase. You can also donate it to the library when you are done.
Enjoy this book.
According to the ad copy, you get Daniel's annotations to the book. And judging by this image, the annotations consist of drawing shapes around the illustrations. This is helpful for knowing where the illustrations are.
The project also comes with two hideous decks of cards.
My favorite part of the video on the product page is when Daniel says the design on these cards is the same one "used by Erdnase himself." Uhm... bitch knows it's a book, right? Those are illustrations. I'm pretty sure they put a little scribble there to indicate the back of the card, not because that's what the cards actually looked like. He must know that, right? Although I hope he doesn't. It's funnier if he doesn't. By that logic Erdnase himself is just a pair of disembodied hands that float in the air because that's all they show in the illustrations.
I'm on no one's side in this debate. I think the fetishizing of EATCT is corny as shit. Therefore I think getting worked up about whatever Daniel Madison has to say about it is stupid. And I think the project itself is completely unnecessary. The truth is, the only way he was likely to get anyone talking about another snooze-inducing tour through EATCT was to make a statement to rile up a bunch of goofball magicians.
Actually, I changed my mind. I'm on Daniel's side. I think behind the faux gambler, tortured artist persona, he's probably a decent dude. (Although feel free to write to me and tell me otherwise. I love some good magic gossip.) And he's really good with a deck of cards. Certainly much better than I. He also gets a pass from me because he came up with Angle Z which is an incredibly useful, simple idea that should be in everyone's toolbox. I wish he'd spend more time coming up with new stuff rather than re-hashing old shit. Or, if you're going to rehash old shit, go put out a treatise on Mark Wilson's Complete Course In Magic. You won't get cool points, but it's something that might actually be used to show people a good time. There's no need to master EATCT unless your goal is to only perform for other magicians, which is a rather useless, insular, magician-centric, masturbatory exercise.
The second issue of The JAMM comes out later today.
Magic has long been about creating a fake persona—the magician, the mind-reader, the gambling expert—and then trying to fool people with supposed manifestations of these fake personas.
The style I prefer is where you present magic as a normal human (yourself) and everyone involved knows it's fake, but it's fun, entertaining, and surprising so that makes it worthwhile. That's the type of magic The JAMM features.
Hey Andy, I didn't get into magic because I had a great personality that people liked being around! My style is to perform as the "Gentleman Conjuror." I read EATCT and pretend to like whiskey.
Okay, whatever dude! To each his own.
Issue #2 is 30 pages. 30 pages! (Don't get used to it.)
By the way, I encourage you to read the reviews in The JAMM even if they're for a product you already have or one you're not interested in. I go on the occasional tangent you might find interesting.
In this month's review of P.A.T.H.S by Matt Mello, I offer a way of presenting a certain type of progressive anagram style effect without guessing letters. Without any yes or no responses. Without asking questions. Without the spectator saying anything. And it works 100% of the time and it's really strong.
If you subscribe before 12:01 AM, New York time on Tuesday the 7th, your subscription will begin with this issue, #2. Anything after that will start with the April issue which comes out April 6th.
Last winter I posted the trick White Nocturne. That is a pretty effect that I use whenever I can on nights in November and December when snow feels fresh and beautiful. It's a genuinely "magical" moment that gets very strong reactions, especially given how easy it is.
This is a very different type of winter trick. This is more of a post-New Years winter trick when snow is seen as a gross pain in the ass to a lot of people. (I'm pretty pro-snow whenever. But a lot of people get sick of it once the new year comes.) I wanted to post it up as we are getting to the end of the snow season here in the northeast US. (Although this is also a trick that can be used during very hot, dry times as well.)
What follows may read as a joke. It ain't.
You ask your spectator to think of something there is no way you could know.
"I want you to think of someone you had a crush on. But I want it to be someone I couldn't possibly know, so make it someone you never told anyone about. Do you have someone like that in mind?"
She does and you have her write that person's initials on a small piece of paper and fold it up.
The paper is torn up and the pieces are dropped in a large glass of water. You stir them around and they completely dissolve.
You look in the water and attempt to get a sense of the initials, but it doesn't work.
"There's one other thing we can try," you say. And you pick up the glass and chug the cloudy liquid.
An hour or so later you take her outside and pee the initials in the snow.
A center-tear done with dissolving paper. (Search "dissolving" paper or "water soluble" paper on Amazon.) Make sure it's non-toxic because you're going to be drinking the stuff. I assume they're all non-toxic, but double check. I don't want your widow suing me after you die doing the pee trick.
What's nice is the center-tear is motivated (breaking something up into smaller pieces before dissolving it is a pretty well understood concept) and you have an hour to get your glimpse at the stolen piece. So you have all the time in the world to pocket the piece and then look at it at a later point in time when there is no heat.
The dissolved paper liquid doesn't taste great, but I'm a bit of a baby when it comes to that sort of thing. And it doesn't help that it looks like a giant load of watery ejaculate. (Of course that will make it easier for some of you.)
As I mentioned, you could do it on a hot sidewalk too. I haven't done it that way, but it's probably more pleasant then yanking your dick out in the dead of winter. I suppose anywhere where liquid would make a distinct mark would work.
You want to have a relatively full bladder going into the effect, but don't chug so much all day that your urine is totally clear.
I think initials are your best bet. But if you're a real Rembrandt of the Dong, you could do a drawing duplication.
Yes, it uses urine, but you can do this as a fairly PG effect. No one needs to see your genitals.
As I said, this may seem like a joke effect, but it's not. I've done it and people are legitimately fooled by it. But on top of that it's funny, and entertaining, and surreal. It's a completely unbelievable premise but there is a certain internal logic to it that I think people find appealing. You drank the initials, then you peed the initials. Like maybe it could be true in a universe just a couple degrees off from ours. Hell, given some people believe in homeopathy, maybe it could be true in this universe.
And sorry ladies, I'm afraid this effect is for the Gentleman Conjuror.
(Actually, maybe not. Maybe you have a dude drink the liquid and when he needs to pee you bring him out to the snow and hold his junk and proceed with the trick as if it's some kind of biological/scatological automatic writing thing.)
Issue #2 of the JAMM comes out on Monday.
Support the Jerx and subscribe to the JAMM. Or be a freeloader all your damned life, see if I care! It's not my karma you're messing up.
Everyone knows a little magic.
On a break from shooting, our photographer catches March's JAMM Muse explaining to me the intricacies of the glide.
This was a helpful exercise for me in determining the type of magic I wanted to perform (and in other areas of my life as well). If you're a bit adrift in identifying your focus as a performer, this may be helpful for you as well.
Let's say I ran a matchmaking service (something more one-on-one than my dating service Equestrian Singles). Perhaps I would ask you to give me a list of women you find attractive and would like to date. I might also ask for a list of women you find unattractive and wouldn't want to date. Those would both be useful lists. But I think the most helpful list in identifying a direction to move in would be a list of women you find attractive that you wouldn't want to date. This would help me identify the deal-breakers and the qualities those women had in common that were somehow more significant than your innate attraction to them.
I asked myself a similar question regarding magic: What magicians do I want to fuck?
No, that wasn't the question I asked myself. It was, "Who are the magicians you like watching, and who you think are good performers, but whose style of performance you're not drawn to?"
This first time you ask yourself this question it's obvious and easy. I think of David Copperfield and Penn and Teller and other stage performers. I like their work, but have no interest in performing in that style.
Now I ask myself the question again, but narrow it down by adding in the details of who was included after my the first round. (Stage performers were excluded, close-up performers were included.) So now the question is: Who are the close-up magicians I enjoy watching but wouldn't want to perform in their style myself?
That knocks out a lot of funny and talented performers—in fact, some of my favorite performers. What do they all have in common? They all perform in a highly-scripted, very "professional" manner. That style doesn't interest me. I prefer an unscripted, more natural, casual style.
So I ask it again, but with this new information incorporated. Who are the natural, casual close-up performers I like and who I enjoy watching, but whose style I wouldn't want to mimic in my performances? And the answer to that question for me was people like Dani DaOrtiz, Greg Wilson, and Peter Turner. I like to watch those guys, I think they're talented, and I enjoy their creations. But I wouldn't want to perform in their styles. Why not? What do they have in common?
For me what they all have in common is that their styles are very intense and forceful and almost domineering in a way. Not in a bad way, but just in a way that a lot of their material depends on a quick and animated manipulation of the spectators.
When Dani DaOrtiz forces a card he deals off clumps and spits out words like, "You tell me where to stop. I don't care. Right here? I don't care. You tell me. Ya-dah-dat-dat-dahh. Here? There? Keep going? Stop? You tell me. I no care... I no care."
When Peter Turner is revealing a digit from a cell phone passcode, a verbal stream comes pouring out. "I see you keep people at arms reach. Have two genuine friends, a lot of acquaintances. Just fell out with a friend over the phone a couple of days ago. Which is something you've told no one. It's the number 8." He says all of this in 7 seconds.
When Greg Wilson performs he grabs people by the wrist and shoulder, directs them to where he wants them to be and where he wants them to look. "Stand over here. Look at the pen, look at the coin, look behind my ear." Etc.
Dani is trying to use the pace of his delivery to get you to say stop at a certain point. Peter is trying to get in a lot of vague information along with something he knows is accurate, so when the spectator says "yes" to the number 8, it seems like she's saying yes to what came before as well. Greg is trying to get you used to him being physical with you so he can steal your watch or wallet.
These are all valid techniques but they don't mesh with my preferred style which is beyond relaxed and low-key.
I just don't like anything that feels like me manipulating someone in any way: verbally, psychologically, or physically. You can see that throughout my work. In the JAMM #1, I describe a way to hand someone a bent coin (or any other changed object) without them noticing because I don't even like folding someone's fingers over a coin I place in their hand. 3rd Wave Equivoque and The Reverse Psychology Force were developed as ways to take the pacing of those classic techniques out of the performer's hands and into the spectator's.
My ideal performance dynamic is me curled up on the other end of the couch as you walk though the effect yourself without my apparent manipulation. And what pushed me in that direction was not watching performers I dislike, but watching performers I liked and seeing the things they did that didn't resonate with me. There isn't a ton to learn by watching people whose work you the. And there's probably a limit to what you can get out of emulating the people you love. But there's definitely something to be gained by watching people whose work you respect and admire, and then being propelled by the areas where your ideologies differ.
Hmm... maybe I should have splashed ink on all the copies of JV1 because the final four "imperfect" test copies all sold over the weekend.
There is one copy left. It costs $38,001, but shipping is free!
It starts as a word game which you lose in spectacular fashion.
"I think I'm better at the advanced version you say."
You play the advanced version and lose again.
"Well... maybe this wasn't about the game at all. You see before we played I made a prediction on what would happen."
You pull a business card out of your wallet. On the back is written:
I Will Win Both Games
"Dammit!" you say. [If I'm performing for another magician I'll mumble, "I think I was supposed to have you read that."]
Finally your spectator reaches into their own pocket to find one final prediction that's inaccurate in the most incredible way possible.
Previously, I offered my presentational variation on the work of John Bannon and Simon Aronson's work, creating the most impressive least impressive prediction (In JV1 as Meta-Bored).
Now I team up with Bannon again to teach (with his permission) my head-to-toe redressing of one of my favorite effects of his, creating the most impressive completely inaccurate prediction: Caster of Worthless Spells. It's 12 minutes of interactive, engaging and funny presentation with an amazing conclusion. It's completely practical, uses items you have on hand or can buy from the dollar store, packs flat and plays big.
It packs flatter and plays even bigger than a game of Body Boggle.
Remember, while we wait for our wealthy benefactor or my MacArthur Genius Grant to arrive, it's your support that keeps this site here. Join the good guys and subscribe to The JAMM. Issue #2 arrives this coming Monday.
I received two emails from readers with similar concerns/issues.
The first was from someone who performed Rest in Pieces (The Puzzle Master took out Richard Hatch).
Ultimately he felt his friend loved the experience but there were moments where things got almost too weird. In his email he wrote:
"I also wanted to ask what your method, or way was of ending an experience like that. Where they may take it too far or you aren't sure about how they will react afterwards."
A few days later I received an email from another reader who had performed Whitman's Algorithm for his boyfriend and he wrote:
"It went well but it was also sort of weird, which I figure is from the presentation changes I made. Instead of giving the sort of loose, "i found it on the internet" kind of explanation, I told him the grid sheet and the cards had been given out with the box of chocolates, as a sort of promotion, at the chocolate shop down the road from our apartment.
Also, instead of using the algorithm to locate his chocolate twice, I ended up using it to locate both of our favourite flavors - something I had prepared for, and which he insisted on in the moment.
What struck me was how much he bought into it. He was thrilled by the experience, in a way he usually isn't quite with magic, which was great. At the same time, though, he was immediately talking about how we would need to visit the chocolate shop and tell them their algorithm had worked perfectly, and it was incredible, and so on.
It wasn't what I expected. Frankly, I assumed he would guess I was behind it, but he was so convinced of the apparent legitimacy of the process that I felt I had to confess my role. It did feel a lot more like a prank than I'm used to. "
I understand both their concerns, but I don't really have an answer because it's not an issue I face. As I've stated before here: At no point before or after the effect do I want them to believe in the fiction of whatever I'm showing them.
As I wrote in June 2015
What makes a trompe-l'œil painting engaging is that it seems so real, even though we know it's not. I strive to perform trompe-l'œil of the fantastic. And what I've found is when people don't have their defenses up against your phony bullshit of trying to come off as "real," it becomes much easier to create feelings of amazement, joy, fear, lust, nostalgia, and poignancy that are real.
I'm not suggesting everyone adopt this style. I'm just saying this is my style. So questions of how I handle someone investing too much in the reality of the effect are not something I have much expertise in, because that's not the type of interaction I have with people. No one believes a goddamn word I say and that's how I like it. I don't want people to believe. But more importantly I don't want people to think I want them to believe.
But how does this jibe with the idea of performing "immersive" effects? Isn't one of your styles, The Romantic Adventure, about immersing someone in a new reality?
Not really. But let me get back to that.
I've been thinking a lot about "Immersive Magic." I've often said my interest is in amateur magic, and that's true, but that's primarily because my real interest is in immersive magic and that requires an amount of time or level of interaction that you just don't really have in professional performances.
There isn't a real sold definition for immersive magic. It's not a branch of magic I invented—effects such as these already existed—I've just categorized them together as a distinct subset of effects. I think there's a chance that some day this will be an area of magic that others recognize as well. Maybe it will even get its own section on the Cafe. (A boy can dream.)
I would say that if an effect requires a significant investment of time, input, or concentration from the spectator, it is probably on the immersive spectrum.
I will often apply this question to an effect to see if it's an immersive style of effect:
Can you do it for a tree stump?
If the answer is "yes" then it's not an immersive effect. And it's generally not the sort of thing I find the people I perform for enjoy the most. They feel the least connected to stuff that doesn't require their actual input or presence. I guess that should be pretty obvious.
"Ah, but I need people to hold coins and sign cards. So no, I could not perform my material for a tree stump."
Sorry, but if you can perform it for a corpse or a monkey who can pick a card or sign its name, it's also not an immersive effect. It's just a standard close-up effect. (Which isn't bad, just not the style we're talking about here.)
If someone were to write out the story of a performance of an immersive effect, the spectator would play a key role that couldn't be played by a tree stump, a corpse, or a smart monkey.
Most mentalism, by its nature, is partly immersive. Although most mentalists, by their nature, make this as bland and inconsequential as possible. "Name a random three digit number."
If you vanish a coin, that is a standard close-up effect. It can be a great, beautiful effect, but I've found there is a ceiling on the response a coin vanish can garner. This is, in my opinion, because it's not immersive. It's superficial. I don't mean that as a judgment on the effect, I just mean that in regards to the spectator's involvement. The spectator doesn't need to be there. They could watch a 50-year old video of the trick and have the same experience.
On the other hand, maybe you're hung up on an ex and having trouble moving on. I say, "Ah, I have an idea. Is there any way you can get your hands on, like, a coin or something they've handled?" And now you're dropping by your ex's place, making some excuse about how you think you left your comb in his bedroom and could you take a quick look? And under that ruse you're stealing a quarter off his dresser which you bring to me. "This is an old Navajo ceremony. I have no clue if it will work." We sign his name on both sides of the quarter. This is a totem of his presence in your mind. I have you read a little incantation. And then the quarter disappears. "You'll find yourself thinking of him less and less from this moment forward," I tell you.
If you write the story of the first effect, your role as spectator could be played by that tree stump.
In the story of the second presentation, your role is as big or bigger than mine.
I would never go steal a quarter from my ex's house so I could take part in some goofy magic trick.
Yes, I know you wouldn't. But I also know others would, because I've done an identical presentation with a different trick twice. If you don't think this gives a 2-second vanish a kind of relevancy that it doesn't normally have, then you're oblivious to the types of things that reverberate with people.
Not that "immersive" always means long and drawn-out. It can often just amount to giving the person you're performing for a role other than just "spectator."
If a spectator's "immersion" or "experience" matter to you then, by definition, they can't see their role as just "spectator" because that's almost always a passive role.
But this brings us back to the beginning because how do I reconcile this intensity of presentation with the idea that I don't want you to believe in the reality of what I'm presenting? Why would anyone bother playing along with something that is ultimately just for fun? Well, because people like having fun. And if you've developed a reputation as someone who will curate moments of mystery and surprise for people, you will find people who want to play along. Of course not everyone will be into it, but you just don't bother with the people who aren't.
As an amateur performer you build the relationship between you, your friends, and magic on a case by case basis. The same way you would if your hobby was playing basketball. "These are people who are up for a game any time I call. These people I have a regularly scheduled game with. These people will play occasionally. And these are people I don't play basketball with but we're still friends." This is a very easy concept to grasp when we're talking about something other than magic.
If you change your style of performance, there will be hiccups along the way when you and the people you perform for aren't on the same wavelength. But these will happen less and less as you become more comfortable and the people you perform for understand better what to expect.
The thing to remember about the immersive presentation is that it's a style that allows people to buy into things as they play out in the moment. But it's not meant to change their understanding of what's happening in reality.
Imagine you really like being scared. Every Halloween you drive two hours to this farm in rural Pennsylvania that puts on the greatest haunted house. You drive out knowing it's fake, you pay your money knowing it's fake, and you leave knowing it's fake. You invest all this time and energy in something you know isn't real. And yet... what makes this the greatest haunted house is that from the moment you step inside it feels real. You never see a zipper on the back of someone's costume. You never catch a zombie chatting on his cell phone. The place smells rotten. And when you get turned around and lose your group for a moment and you find yourself all alone and a shadowy figure starts slowly approaching, you are genuinely terrified.
There are people in the world who have a love for a genuine feeling of mystery and surprise and don't even know that magic can scratch that itch because the two most common ways magic is performed wont satisfy that urge.
The first way is to suggest: "I'm a powerful being with special powers!" That's a claim that just demands to be challenged and debunked, not entertained in any way.
The second way—the most common way—is to present it as a total goof that you could never get caught up in.
That's all childish horse-shit that involves the least amount of effort and creativity on your part. You can't elicit true amazement because you're not creating the circumstances that feeling could thrive in.
Think back to the haunted house analogy, because it's very applicable to what we do. The people behind the haunted house want to create genuine terror from something everyone agrees going in is fake. And they can do that because during the experience nothing rings false. This is what immersive magic is designed to be. To give them an experience where the unbelievable is presented as if it were real and to create genuine awe from fake magic.
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
