Jerx Deck Update

The last time I mentioned the forthcoming Jerx deck (that goes to JAMM subscribers with a paid annual subscription at the end of this year), I said that due to mandatory printing minimums I may end up having to order many more decks than I need. And if that's the case I'm going to take the excess decks and burn them in a bonfire on the beach.

I received feedback from a few people suggesting I should sell the decks instead. "You can charge a premium for them because they're so limited. That's got to be better financially for you than burning them," M.I. wrote.

Yes, I get that, but there are a couple reasons that option isn't on the table.

1. My goal with the things I sell is never to maximize profits. It's to maximize exclusivity to the people who see this site as worth supporting. I've stated many times the only way to get the deck is with a year's subscription, and I'm pretty adamant about sticking to my word on these sorts of things. 

2. Every extra deck that's out there floating around makes the decks that are subscriber bonuses a little less valuable. Maybe not in any quantifiable way, monetarily. But just... uhm... spiritually. Or something. I'm very satisfied with the idea that each deck out in the world is a 1:1 representation of an individual supporting this site. 

But all that being said, I am going to make the extra decks available for sale. At least some of them.

They will be $125 a piece.

Wait... Andy... that's five dollars more than the cost of purchasing the full first year of The JAMM, which gets you the deck for free.

I know! Look, I didn't say it was a good buy, I just said it would be available. 

Some people have said they'd like to get an additional deck because they like to open one and keep the other sealed. Well... I'm afraid you're going to have the least consequential dilemma of your life in front of you... whether to open the deck or not. Or, I will offer one additional feature free to subscribers...

The Jerx Deck Schrödinger's Deck Option

If you'd like. I will either unwrap or leave sealed your Jerx deck. Then I will seal it in an opaque envelope. As long as you don't open it you will forever have both a sealed and unsealed deck in your possession.

Show Notes: Verso by Helder Guimaraes

In the past six months I've seen three magic shows in New York City. That is, three full length magic shows in an actual theater. That's more than I saw in my previous 15 years in the city combined. This is due to a few factors. The first is that I can't remember a time when there were three large-scale magic shows in NYC in such a short period of time. The second is that since I no longer live in NYC full time, but still like to get back there when I can, the presence of a show gives me a specific time-sensitive reason to go back. And the last reason is because I'm writing this site so it feels like I should be following the magic zeitgeist to a certain extent.

In the coming weeks I'll be writing some thoughts on the shows I saw (and one I'll be seeing soon, David Blaine). These aren't really reviews I just want to talk about the shows and any takeaways that might inform my performances in the future.

Helder Guimaraes

I saw Helder's show, Verso, at New World Stages in November. I have very little positive to say about the show. But, at the same time, I don't have much negative to say about the show either. I genuinely don't remember much about the show at all. 

Here's what I do remember:

1. It was too long. It should have been half the length with no intermission. Very few magic shows warrant a 2 hour running time. 

2. I remember being fooled a few times during the show.

3. I remember something to do with little envelopes on the wall, maybe?

4. I remember a trick where a bunch of people in the audience had picked a card from a deck that was being passed around (I think) and he was able to name the cards. I remember this because the girl in front of me who was there with her dad had her card named and was very excited about it.

5. I remember him, more than once, reiterating one of my least favorite presentational conceits, and that's when people say something like, "I want you to remember when you see magic that anything is possible!" Or words to that effect.

I think magicians vastly overestimate how "inspiring" a magic trick is. You're doing tricks and the audience knows you're doing tricks. It's completely nonsensical and illogical to hold up your dumb tricks as evidence that anything is possible, because your tricks aren't real. It would be like taking a picture of your doughy body, then using photoshop to trim off the pounds and make it look like you're in shape, and then turning to someone standing next to you, showing them the manipulated image and saying, "I hope this physical transformation reminds you to take your health seriously and realize that getting in shape is possible." 

It's such a goofy message that it would be almost comical if that was your intention. If you have someone going through a tough time, you could make them laugh by doing some dumb card trick and saying, "I hope you now realize that anything is possible if you put your mind to it."

I genuinely have no real recollection of the show beyond that. I asked my friend who went with me what he remembered and he said, "He threw a sock monkey into the audience a bunch of times and he yelled a lot." 

That's probably not quite the lasting memory Helder was hoping to impart.

You might say, "Who are you to critique the show? Have you ever had your own off-Broadway magic show?"

No, but I have worked and performed in other types of shows. Just last month someone emailed me to tell me they were thinking about something I wrote 20 years ago. It was a sketch that was based on Summer Nights from the movie/musical Grease. Except, in this version, Danny didn't go to the beach for the summer, he went to work on his uncle's farm. So instead of the song being split up between guys and girls, it's split up between guys on one side of the stage and cows (well, people in cow costumes) on the other. And it becomes clear during the course of the sketch/song that Danny fucked one of these cows while on summer break. And the song had all the energy and choreography of the original, but the cows only ever said "moo." So it would be like:

Boys: "Tell me more! Tell me more! Did you get very far?"

Cows: "Moo moo moooo! Moo moo mooooo! Moo moo moo moo moo moo?"

So yeah, you could say I'm pretty much a genius of theatrical stage-craft.

Ok, it's a fair point. I haven't put on a full length magic show. I'm certainly not suggesting I could perform a better show. I could, however, write a better show. Probably in a weekend. As far as I could tell there was no real effort put into the writing of the show. It was just a bunch of tricks strung together. And that's probably the reason why I can't remember anything about it. I'm sure if I saw it again I'd think, "Oh yeah, I remember that trick." But the lack of a grander structure made the show kind of forgetful. 

That was my takeaway from Helder's show. I think at the most basic level, we might define a successful magic show as a series of tricks that fools the audience. But, if there is no resonance to the effects, I'm not sure we can consider that a success. Long ago I realized I had more than enough tricks that fooled people. But being fooled fades. And this blog has been, in part, an exploration on ways of making that magic feeling last longer than just the initial "surprise" moment. (In the same way that a horror movie with a lot of things jumping out at you might scare you in the moment, but a creepier, more subtle horror movie—one that might not have you jumping as much—might frighten you for years to come as you think about it when you're home alone.) Helder's show reminds me that I don't just want strong magic moments, I want long-lasting ones.

Imps

Recently, I've been thinking about the causes of magical effects. That is, the impetus behind what actually is producing that effect in the moment. This goes back to my anti-snapping post. 

I wrote in that post:

If you ever do anything with a "snap" of the fingers, you've literally put the least possible effort into coming up with one of the more interesting aspects of a trick: the stimulus that makes the magic happen.

For the past few weeks I've been toying with this idea of putting the focus on the impetus (and not the effect) and have had pretty remarkable results from it.

I've been brainstorming and testing out a lot of different impetuses. And because "impetuses" doesn't really roll off the tongue, I'll refer to these as "imps." Which is some Max Maven-level wordplay because imps historically have been a motivating force behind magic.

So an "Imp" is something you do to make the magic happen. 

A snap is an Imp, because it's the impetus behind the magic. "This card will rise to the top when I snap my fingers." It's just a hackneyed an uncreative impetus.

The Five Movements I wrote about in this post would be another Imp. "The magic happens when I do the five movements." That would be another physical impetus (like snapping) but one that has some element of mystery to it. 

Using a magic word is a verbal impetus. Doing a half-mumbled verbal incantation might be a more interesting and mysterious verbal impetus.

If you're stuck on a presentation for an effect, I recommend you think instead about the impetus for the effect. Let's consider an example. 

You have an effect. Let's say it's a ball that changes color and then grows in size. 

The magician-centric presentation is, "Here is a ball. When I snap my fingers it will change color. When I say the magic word it will grow in size." The focus is on you and some half-hearted meaningless imps. 

However, you're a more evolved magician now, so you think I'm going to give this a presentation that truly connects with people. But you're stuck... what's it going to be about? Maybe the ball represents something? Something that changes and grows? Cancer? Aw fuck, that's a terrible subject to build a trick around. Hmmm... maybe something about how we can all change and grow... something inspirational? Would something like that come off as anything other than trite garbage?

Stop.

Thinking directly about the effect and trying to come up with a presentation that maps on top of the effect is probably not the best option. 

Instead think in terms of impetus. The ball changes color and grows when...what? Maybe the ball changes color and grows when your spectator smells the scent of some black tulips you have in a vase on your counter. What might that be like? Your friend comes over, notices the flowers and comments on how strange they are. "Smell them," you say. She does and you give her a half smile. "Notice anything?" you ask. She looks at you quizzically. You look around the room for a bit. "Let me grab something," you say and pick up a ball from your kid's toys. You wave the ball slowly back and forth. "Anything unusual happening?" you ask again. She starts to say no, but then the ball changes color and a moment after that it grows in size.

"Don't worry," you say, "the tulips have a mild-hallucinogenic effect. But it only lasts a few seconds." And you toss the ball back in the toy chest.

Putting your effort into creating an interesting impetus for a trick is a short-cut towards creating unique experiences for your audience.

I think every amateur magician who actually performs frequently for people in their life has noticed the diminishing reactions their effects get over time. And that's because, often, our tricks deliver the same experience time after time. "He read my mind to know what picture I drew." "He read my mind to know what word I was thinking." "He read my mind to know what the code to my phone was." That's all pretty much the same thing to a person. We think it's different because we're fascinated by magic so we notice the subtleties, but to the layperson these are all nearly identical experiences. You can watch someone paint a mountain or a river or a forest, and those are all the same experience for you despite the different subject matter unless you yourself are enamored with painting. 

The best way I've found to prevent the diminishing reactions is to differentiate the experiences. And the best way I've found to differentiate these experiences is to differentiate the impetuses for the effects. 

This is a subject that genuinely fascinates me. I have a document with over 60 Imps on it right now in all sorts of different categories. (Physical Imps, Verbal Imps, Procedural Imps, Sense Imps, Mystery Imps, among others). And I've been performing as much as I can recently to try out some of them and it's been pretty amazing. Tricks that I formerly had no real presentation for—ones that I would just use the Peek Backstage style for—have new life in them when prefaced with an intriguing or mysterious imp.

That being said, I also realize this is probably of limited interest to a lot of you, so I'll try not to get too swept up in writing these things up for the site.

But I want to leave you with one of my favorite imps that I've been using whenever I can.

The Pulp Fringe-Imp

Think of all the self-working or mostly self-working card tricks that have been released in recent years—entire DVD sets devoted to these types of tricks. Pick any one you like. Ideally one with a lot of dealing and counting and other process, but one that still has an impressive outcome. The type of trick that often people think isn't "commercial" enough to perform for real people. 

I've been using this a lot with John Bannon's Collusion. In that trick I would have you and your friend each deal down any number of cards you want in the deck to select any random cards, those random cards are used to create another card, and then the free numbers you chose are used to find the card we just created.

The Pulp Fringe-Imp is a way of taking effects like these, that often come off as procedural puzzles, and turning them into genuine mysteries.

Here's how it works.

I come into the room with a deck of cards and a small suitcase. I open the suitcase and a light from inside illuminates my face.

I have you go through the processes of the trick as I would normally, but as you do I am tapping and clicking on something inside the valise. When you deal down to your freely chosen number I do something in the suitcase (and when your friend does as well). Then when the random card is created I do something else in there. When you both name your numbers for the first time I do one final thing. Then I close up the suitcase, lock it, clap my hands together and say, "Okay, we're all set," and go onto the climax of the trick. 

I never show you what's in the suitcase. I never say what's in it. I don't bring it up again. And I certainly don't suggest anything about how what I could be doing in there could affect the deck of cards and the actions that are going on with us. 

This is a Mystery Imp. There is no straight-line explanation between what you're doing and what happens, but that's what makes it so intriguing.

As the name implies this was inspired by both Pulp Fiction (the glowing briefcase) and the show Fringe (where a typewriter was used to communicate with... aliens (?) I think, I don't really remember the details).

If you look in my suitcase I have two dollar store lights that I turn on before I enter the room and an old dial typewriter from the 1940s. It provide a great mysterious ratcheting and clacking noise, but you could have anything in there that makes some not clearly identifiable sound. I also have a wind-up Peepers Binoculars in there, just for the hell of it. Nobody ever sees what's inside. (My plan is to make a more portable version of this with a small pencil-box-sized box as well.)

The effect of this is very different than just doing the trick itself. In essence you're layering a mystery on top of a mystery. Not only, "How did he do that trick?" but also, "What's in the suitcase?" and, "How did whatever was happening in the suitcase—how could whatever was happening in the suitcase—affect what we were doing out here?" This is a related concept to The Gloaming and other things I've written about here.

Essentially it's about deepening the mystery. That sounds like a pretty abstract concept: "deepening the mystery." But here I'm suggesting a very practical method to do that by literally adding layers to the presentation. The impetus of the effect is usually a layer that is ignored or just given lip-service by magicians. "I wave my wand and magic happens, or whatever, who gives a shit." But it's the sort of thing that can be very compelling and really elevate the effect for the people you perform for.

With the GLOMM, Magic Always Comes First

A lot of people are crediting the creation of The GLOMM with a precipitous fall in the number of stories of magicians diddling kids recently.

The GLOMM, as you may know, is the world's largest magic organization. Everyone with an interest in magic or mentalism is a member, unless you're a sexual predator or just a general piece of human garbage.

Surprisingly, other magic organizations don't have these requirements. If you're Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker, and you want to join the IBM or the SAM, hey no-problemo! Just pay your dues. You want to expose yourself to a group of second graders on a field-trip to the petting zoo? That's fine by them. Just don't expose the glide to a non-magician. That might get you kicked out. That's where their priorities are.

With The GLOMM, there are no membership dues. Just be a dear and don't sodomize the birthday boy with a mop handle when his mom's not around, okay? Thanks. You're a gem.

If you'd like to up your membership level to elite status, you can purchase the elite membership kit here. That comes with the grey elite member shirt, membership card, and enamel pin.

The Secret Hyper-Elite Platinum Membership level shirt (the red one) is now sold out completely and will not be reprinted. (There may be a future SHEP Membership shirt for 2017, but it will be completely different.)

How Dumb Was Houdini?

I've always assumed Houdini was pretty dumb. And I've read a number of books about him and none of them really changed my mind about that. Obviously he was a brilliant showman and magician and a genius in certain ways, but just as a human he strikes me as kind of a dope. It might be the name Houdini. "I called myself Houdini because I like Robert Houdin." He doesn't get enough shit for that. That's a pretty dumb thing to do. You don't agree? You think it's cool? Okay, imagine you're on a train and the guy sitting next to you says, "I'm a magician. My name is Coby Copperfield-O, after my hero, David Copperfield." Not so cool now, is it.

Also, get off that train. I don't trust Coby to not turn that shit into a Terror Train in honor of his idol.

So, I have to say, I wasn't completely surprised when I saw a moronic quote attributed to Houdini while searching around for stuff online.

Let's parse this for a moment. "My brain is the key that sets my mind free." His brain sets his mind free? What could that possibly mean, given that, in this context, brain and mind are used synonymously?

Was he dumb enough to say this?

As it turns out, no, he wasn't. What he said was:

"My brain is the key that sets ME free."

Okay, so it's a mind over matter type thing. He's saying it's not about the locks or the picks, it's about using his brain and focusing his mind, that's what sets him free. At least I think that's what he's saying.

That makes sense.

But what doesn't make sense is that I found that Houdini design on ebay and a number of shirts had sold with that mis-quote on it.

Did people not read it? Did it somehow make sense to them? Or is there just a subset of dumb people who will buy any shirt with Houdini on it regardless of what it says?

I'm hoping it's the latter because I'm starting a new t-shirt company. Here are some of my initial designs.

New-Fangled Magic

Here's another classic from the MCJ archives, via request from reader SL. I don't know how someone remembers such a dumb post from 12 years ago, but here it is.

It started when I saw an ad for this. 

By the way, that's what constituted a GIF in 2005.

From May 5th, 2005

New Fangled Magic

I like this.

It says:

Although similar in function to glasses and jugs that produce a similar effect, the construction of the prop in the form of a regular milk bottle (3" diameter, 8.5" high) makes this seem like an ordinary every day object, least likely to arouse suspicion as a gimmicked magician's prop.

Yes, what could be more ordinary than a bottle that milk used to be delivered to people's houses in seventy years ago? I say: nothing. Certainly not those always suspicious "glasses." 

If the milk bottle seems like an "everyday" object above suspicion to you, then you may enjoy these other ideas I have for the modern performer of magical endeavors.

-I've found a good time to set up a magic effect is when the family is gathered round the radio listening to The Fibber McGee & Molly program. The sounds of their amuse-ed laughter let you know that you're free to spirit away that card into your pantaloons for a bawdy post-suppertime effect. 

-Call me if you should ever like to perform the effect where "The Wizard" identifies a selected pasteboard tele-phonically. My number is Klondike 2-5784. 

-To make an object float in poorly lit quarters, just have a colored fellow carry it across the room. His midnight skin won't be visible! But take heed! Negroes are notoriously scared of hoo-doo and prone to fisticuffs.

Dear Jerxy: Finding Accepting Audiences

Dear Jerxy: I need some motivation. I like reading your presentations and thoughts on performance and I'd like to adopt some of those elements in order to change up my style but I'm a little uncomfortable doing so. I don't know if the people I perform for would be interested in something more involved. (It can be a challenge to keep their attention for even a quick trick at times.) Is there a way to find more accepting audiences? Are there certain people you use a more standard presentation for if you think they'd prefer that? If so, how do you identify the people who would be up for something in your style as opposed to those who wouldn't?

Yours Truly,
Stuck in A Rut

Dear SIAR: Yes, there are some people who I perform for in a very cut and dried manner with very little engagement or theatrics. Those people are called "other magicians." Those are the only people I know of who want to just get to the trick. 

With everyone else my rule is to perform the most fun and engaging presentation I can for an effect given the situation.

A lot of people question a more interactive style of performance because they've performed magic for a long time and they recognize that audiences often just aren't into it. And so they think asking people to invest more into their performance is crazy. If people are barely into it when all they need to do is sit back and watch it happen, isn't asking them to join in and play along going to be some kind of torture for them?

That has not been my experience. 

An engaging presentation that requires the spectator to be more involved doesn't exacerbate their annoyance or disinterest. In fact it's the antidote to it.

I don't think you need to find new audiences. I think you can win over the people you currently perform for by changing up how you perform.

I used to perform magic in a pretty standard way. A way that I would now consider kind of dull and self-serving. And, like a lot of you, I found that about a third of the people I performed for liked magic, a third didn't, and a third were somewhere in the middle. 

But as my style has evolved, it now feels like almost everyone I perform for likes it on some level. And that's because, whenever possible, these things are not about me. They're about their involvement, so these tricks become experiences.

What do people do when they go on vacation? They see new things and do new things and experience new things. This is how they reward themselves after a year of hard work. People crave new experiences.

Ah, no, no, no, Andy. That's where you're wrong. I know a bunch of people who would rather just chill out and watch something.

Yes. But those people want to watch Netflix, not deal with whatever you're trying to show them in any manner. Do you really want to make your material as unchallenging and unobtrusive as possible just so you can show it to people who have no real desire to see it in the first place?

Here's the thing, you can't let the people who are least interested in what you're doing, define how you do it.

(That's a life rule, not just a magic rule.)

If you concentrate on creating interesting experiences (not demonstrations of your brilliance) you'll have no problem finding an audience, because interesting experiences are universally appealing, even if they require more "work" for the audience than a typical magic performance.

To think your spectator won't put effort into a more engrossing magical experience because they haven't expressed much interest in your traditional presentations (that don't require them to contribute much) is like thinking, "I don't believe this person would be interested in a night of passionate lovemaking because they haven't shown much enthusiasm in watching me masturbate on my webcam."