Righting Writing

"Why do I have to write the word down? Why can't you just read my mind?"

I'm going to tell you how I handle questions like these. Or, more accurately, how I used to handle questions like these. Since I rarely use a presentation as straightforward as "I'm going to read your mind," these types of challenges come at me less frequently. If, for example, a Ouija board is going to reveal the word they're thinking of, then writing down the word and burning it is just part of the process. They can't really question the writing down of the word too much because it's not like I'm claiming this is my process, it's just the process that I learned. 

The majority of what I do falls into that category these days. I'm demonstrating something other than pure mind-reading so the writing down of information becomes more justified. For example, The Donny Ackerman trick. I'm not reading their mind, I'm stopping time and opening up this piece of paper they hold in their hand. The trick doesn't make sense if they don't write it down.

But, I still do the occasional mind-reading bit, and here are my thoughts on these sort of questions/challenges. 

The easiest way I've found to avoid this issue is to not mention mind-reading or anything like that until after the word is written down. Don't say, "I'm going to read your mind. Here, write down any word you can think of. Now give it to me. I'll put it in my wallet." You're giving them too many opportunities to think, "What does this have to do with mind-reading?"

Instead, get the logistics out of the way first. "I want you to write down any word you like on this card.... Ok, I don't want to see it. Let's put it away for now." Once the word is put away, or the picture is drawn and sealed in the envelope, or whatever other process needs to be done, then you go into the "I'm going to read your mind" business. I think this is better because nothing is ever actively incongruous. When they write the word, they don't know what's going to happen next so there's nothing to question there. And later when you say, "Now, you have a word in your mind, and you've committed to that word [small gesture to the wallet], and I'm going to try and read your mind," they may at that time feel like the writing of the word wasn't completely justified, but it's not something happening in the moment that they need to question. If they think it's incongruous, it's only retroactively incongruous, so it's much less likely to be questioned.

So that's my first recommendation. Don't bring up mentalism or mind-reading until after the logistics are complete. 

My second recommendation is this: Don't directly justify why you had them write the word down. Unless they specifically ask you why, only indirectly suggest why you did it. For example, above I said, "You have your word in mind and you're committed to that word," as I gesture towards the wallet. That's an indirect justification. It's better than saying, "I'm going to have you write the word down. The reason I have you write the word down is so we all have proof that I really did read your mind. I don't want you to say I didn't when I did, or say I did when I didn't, just to be nice. And I'm going to put it in my wallet so I can't see it. And also so it's safe." I don't think justification with that level of detail sounds great. It would be like if you caught me looking in your medicine cabinet and I said, "Hey, do you have any floss?" That interaction would probably slide by. But if I instead said, "Hey, the reason I opened your medicine cabinet is because I wanted to see if you had floss. I have a popcorn kernel in my teeth and it's driving me crazy. That's why I wanted the floss. To get out that bit of popcorn kernel. The one I mentioned before. The one in my teeth. I know people keep their prescriptions in their medicine cabinet, but I wasn't paying attention to them. I was just looking for floss," you'd wonder what the hell I was up to.

This is a life tip as much as a magic one: The more effort you put into your justification before being questioned about it, the less likely your justification is to be believed.

But let's say you get to the end of the effect and they do question why they had to write down the word. At this point you're free to justify the action in the most direct and convincing way possible. 

Here are two ways to handle it.

This first way has been my preferred method in the past.

They ask, "Can you read my mind without me writing something down?"

I first give them an analogy. "Hmm... not really. It's like asking, 'Can you hear one particular song playing if your radio is broadcasting all the frequencies at once?' I mean, yes, the song is in there, but it would be almost impossible to decipher until you tuned into a particular frequency. Your brain needs to be tuned into a frequency that I can pick up on too. So if I say, 'Think of the word you wrote down,' that's something definitive I can try and pick up on. But if I just say, 'Think of a random word,' there's almost no way of deciphering that because there is no substance to it. At any moment your mind is filled with random words to some extent. So writing the word down provides some focus."

I then do a bit of verbal jiu jitsu to take the question and flip the entire premise. "I know there are some people who claim to be able to read someone's thoughts without having them write it down or see the word in a book or something... but I think those people are faking it."

See? I've taken this act that they thought was questionable (writing the word down) and suggested it's an indication that what they're seeing is genuine. 

Here's another alternative for justifying the writing.

They ask, "Can you read my mind without me writing something down?"

You answer, "It depends. Sometimes, maybe, for simple stuff. It's like... actually, I was just reading about this the other day. Let me see if I can find it. I saved the blog post because it definitely echoes my experience with this sort of thing."

You then pop out your phone or laptop and bring up the article you were reading that talks about a study showing how writing something down affects focus. You read one line from the article, "The act of writing not only 'boosts the signal' for the information that is written down, it also suppresses extraneous 'noise' from sensory input and memory."

The blog post about this bogus study is on the new DMB site that I mentioned last Friday. Look for the post called Writing and Memory on 9/20/17. It even has a line that helps justify ripping the paper in a center tear or putting a business card back in your wallet.

That post features this illustration by Iain Dunford which I think will help them visualize the (supposed) effect writing has on their focus. 

The truth is, if you don't perform much, and this is a concern of yours, you can relax about it. Most people will never question you about these sorts of things. But even though that's the case, I think your presentation will be stronger and more assured if you know what you'll say should the subject come up. So have a plan, but there's no need to worry about it too much.

Jerx Deck Update

Those who have purchased (or will purchase) the full Volume One of the JAMM will be receiving their Jerx Deck of playing cards by the end of this year. (Well, that's what I'm shooting for. But since this isn't something that's 100% in my control, I can only say that that's the estimated date. I'll let you know if that changes.)

It looks like we're going to be working with Expert Playing Card Company on this. They have graciously lowered their minimum order so I'm not stuck with 100s of extra decks.

It's funny to me to look online and see people talking about decks where "only 10,000 decks" were made. That seems like a shit-ton of decks to me. There will only be a tiny fraction of that number of Jerx Decks produced. And while I may do other decks in the future, they will be completely different than this one, so this is likely to be one of the rarest decks in your collection. 

It's not going to be a "funny" deck. It's going to have a simple esthetic that matches this site and JV1. (I do have a "funny" deck in mind for the future. Well, a deck that does something funny. And by funny, I mean stupid. We'll see if that comes to fruition.)

Not in the immediate future, but eventually, this deck won't be available as a bonus, so if it's something you're interested in, make sure you're subscribed to the JAMM.

And here's a sneak peek at next year's bonus deck. 

Gardyloo #34

Saw this on the Magic Cafe:

Thank you, The Duster, for giving me this chance to address this completely genuine, totally real feud I have with Joshua Jay. The "back story" is too long to get into. Josh and I have been friends since we were children. And, in the magic world, we've always kind of been like the Beatles and the Beach Boys, pushing each other artistically. Actually, it was more like I was the Beatles and Josh was the Dave Clark Five. But let's not get hung up on the analogy.

Again, there are far too many stories to get into in one blog post. Suffice it to say we've had a bit of a rocky relationship and there have been a series of incidents that have caused a lot of tension between Josh and I. 

I remember a few years back, Mark Elsdon came out with a trick called iBalance, where you balance a phone on your fingertips.

Here is the quote from Josh that was used in the advertising for iBalance.

"iBalance is, I think, one of the all-time best effects with a phone. Unlike magic with apps, it doesn't just look like technology. iBalance looks like REAL MAGIC. Best of all, it will never become obsolete as phones improve. This one is going into my daily repertoire." -Joshua Jay

Now, here's the thing, I'm a smart guy, so after I read that endorsement, I did something smart. I cleared out my bank account and bought $46,000 worth of iBalances. I figured Josh knew what he's talking about. 

Now, I don't want to say too much, but iBalance utilizes the headphone jack in its methodology.

"Best of all, it will never become obsolete as phones improve." - Joshua Jay

"Best of all, it will never become obsolete as phones improve." - Joshua Jay

"Best of all, it will never become obsolete as phones improve." - Joshua Jay

Thanks A LOT, NostraDUMBASS.

---

A reader directed me to this on the Cafe...

Sure, stupid, I can explain it for you.

You see, I was talking about ways for Jerx readers to secretly identify themselves to each other at magic conventions. And I had offered them a way to do so by humming a tune. This would be a fairly subtle way to covertly signal to someone that you read this site.

Now, strap in, because here is where it apparently got too complicated for you. Then I said, if you can't do this subtle thing, the alternative is to do this wildly egregious and crass thing where you suggest you've researched the holocaust and believe it never happened. The joke is that the alternative I provide is so wildly disparate from my original suggestion. And that someone would be willing to come out as a holocaust denier to secretly let people know they read a magic blog. And, by extension, that multiple people at a convention would be making this same insane statement. You couldn't figure that out? You needed to crowdsource an interpretation?

Next time, if you don't understand something, it's probably not a great idea to say it's in "bad taste." Passing judgment on things you don't understand is not a great look for you. It would be like saying:

Maybe someone can explain the "math" in this calculus textbook to me, because I don't understand it, and frankly I think it's a bunch of horseshit.

---

Another gem I found on the Magic Transcribed twitter.

037 Video pic.twitter.com/I9Va8qAu01

— Magic Transcribed (@TranscribeMagic) July 6, 2017

Okay, sure, I know the consensus would say you have to be straight-up braindead to ask that question. But someday, someday, he's going to ask that and the person is going to say "No" and then they're going to follow that up with what I can only imagine will be the most interesting story ever told. And that story would have gone untold if he had never asked that "stupid" question.

In my opinion, we don't dig enough with these sorts of questions. In fact, these days, before I have someone sign a card, I ask, "Are you aware of, uhm... do you know your first name?"

The M1nd of D@nny

I want to tell you about a new resource I've created, well, for myself, really, but you can use it too. 

You see, for a while now I've been getting into effects by talking about "something I read" or "something I saw online." This is a pretty natural way to get into discussing anything unusual or interesting that might provide the premise for a trick.

But, I thought, it would be so much better if I could actually be reading a site and say, "Oh, this is interesting," or if I could pull up a page online so I could reference the article I read about some breathing technique that increases intuition three-fold, or whatever.

In the past I've used a site called Pen.Io which allows you to create quick one-page websites when I wanted to reference something online that wasn't actually something that was online. But it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. It looks like something that was just thrown together. 

So I knew I should probably make a website. One that looked just like some random person's blog. One that covered "interesting" stuff, so I could put pretty much anything on there and it wouldn't seem out of place. One that would seem legit if someone were to take a look at my iPad and scroll around, or even if they remembered the site's name and went so far as to check it out later on. 

So I created a blog for this guy named Danny who likes to write about interesting things. You can find it here. I'm not going to have too many links to that site on this one, just to keep the sites fairly separated from anyone doing a search online (not that I expect anyone to start trying to track this stuff down, but there's no need to make the connection too obvious. When I reference the site in the future, it will go to this post and you can follow from this post to the site itself.)

Here's an example of how I'll use the site. One of the tricks I've had a lot of fun performing that's buried in this blog is called Tiki and Ronde. You can read it here. Now, instead of just bringing up the subject out of the blue, I can act like I'm reading about it in real time while hanging out with someone. Or I can say, "I read about this thing the other day... wait... let me see if I can find it again." Then I bring it up on my phone, kind of scan through it real quickly, showing it briefly to my friend, then transitioning into the trick. In this case I'd show them the article about these shortwave radio stations that were broadcasting playing card values in the 60s and 70s. Then I'd say I looked a little bit further into it and there's this thing I want to try. (The post on DMB that goes with Tiki and Ronde is the first post on 9/11/17). 

It may not seem like much of a big deal that, instead of saying, "I heard about this thing I want to try," I can say, "I heard about this thing... give me a sec...let me bring it up... oh yeah, here it is. I want to try it with you." But I've found that when I can reference something that seems to exist outside of me and the person I'm performing for, I can generate a different level of interest, and it just seems more natural. This is how people actually introduce weird ideas and intriguing concepts to people in the real world. They say, "Check out this thing I read." They don't usually just start spouting out, "In 1852 the government of Paraguay was dealing with a thorny issue. How to get rid of a weasel epidemic. One man stepped forward with an interesting solution. He'll be represented by this king of spades...."

I'm not suggesting you make someone read what's posted there (unless that's part of the effect), but even if it's just something you have up on your laptop and you only acknowledge in passing ("hey, I want to see if this thing works," nodding towards the screen), I find it can add a different layer to the interaction. And it makes it super easy to transition into an effect if you have something in the environment (like this site) to build off of, rather than just introducing something out of nowhere.

It might seem like I'm putting too much effort into this. Why not just do the trick? Certainly you don't need to invest the energy to give the trick a context. No. You don't. You also don't have to do a good double lift. You can do a shitty one. What I've found is that giving short shrift to either of these sorts of things weakens the experience. Context gives an effect some roots. 

Now, the nice thing about the blog is that it's not going to be a bunch of posts about made-up shit. Those posts are going to be dispersed amongst a bunch of posts about actual weird or interesting concepts. That part of the blog is being handled by friend of the site, Joe Mckay. He has a natural interest in those sorts of things and I knew he'd be able to pump that stuff out rather easily. So if someone were to give the site a closer look it would seem pretty genuine, because, for the most part, it is. You may find value in those legit posts as well, as far as food for thought presentationally, or just in the general sense of being somewhat interesting. Thanks to Joe for handling the day-to-day running of that site.

I'll let you know when I add something to that site that you might find useful. And if you're a supporter of the Jerx and there's something you'd like to have added to the site, let me know and I'll incorporate it. (But it has to be something that could capture someone's imagination as being potentially possible. I'm not going to add a post like, "Did you know playing cards have personalities?!")

Back in Stock

The Amateur at the Kitchen Table is back in stock. It can be ordered here.

Here is the intro to that book:

Secrets of amateur magic have well been preserved. If we were to list the books that are devoted to the performance of amateur magic—that is, the informal performance of magic in casual, non-professional environments—it would be a short list indeed. In fact, I don’t know of any such book other than this slim volume that you hold in your hands. 

“Ah, but what about The Amateur Magician’s Handbook, by Henry Hay,” you suggest.

You know, one would think that a book called The Amateur Magician’s Handbook would be a good handbook for the study of amateur magic. And yet, it’s not. It’s certainly a great book and has a lot to offer a magician performing in any type of situation, but it does not really tackle the pitfalls and possibilities that are unique to the amateur performer. Quite the opposite, in fact, it talks about working in nightclubs, performing children’s shows, and different ways to get publicity. Did “amateur” used to have a different meaning or something? 

The book is written as if the only reason an amateur would be performing magic is to become a professional magician. And that is, in fact, the differentiation that most magic books seem to make, i.e., the amateur is just a magician who has not yet risen to the level of a professional.

But there are many of us for whom that holds no appeal at all. I would rather disembowel myself with a card sword than perform trade-show magic, for example. That’s nothing against trade-show magic other than to say that the nature of the business does not appeal to me. When it comes to creative endeavors I don’t want to do the same thing over and over again. I don’t even want to do variations on the same thing over and over again. I want to constantly be doing new things, following new paths, and coming up with new ideas. If you want to be a good professional magician, then that can’t be your focus. Your focus needs to be on perfecting a handful of things. Not dicking around with a lot of things. 

What this book presupposes is that the performance of amateur magic is a separate pursuit than performing magic in a professional arena. Amateur magic is not a stepping stone to a professional career. They are two different paths. They are different undertakings with different rules and different end goals. One can pursue both, but they’re not the same. They offer different opportunities and possibilities. And the underlying relationship between the magician and the spectator is different, or at least it should be.

It is also my belief that following the principles of behavior that were established for the professional magician is detrimental to the amateur performer.

How can that be? Certainly holding yourself to a higher standard—a professional standard—could only serve to enhance your performances, right? No. You have to keep in mind that these are different pursuits. You’ve sort of been unintentionally brainwashed into thinking they’re the same thing because every magic book implies they are. 

Imagine every cookbook had been written for someone working in a professional kitchen and not the home cook. And the rules they delineated and the techniques they suggested were all aimed at the professional cook. So you would go to make you and your family macaroni and cheese for dinner and the first ingredient would be “8 gallons of milk.” And you had to stir it with one of those giant metal oars. This would likely not produce the best mac and cheese for your family. Or, at the very least, it would be an uneconomical and inconvenient way to produce such a dish. 

That would, obviously, be a poor way to teach the home-cook. And yet when we talk about magic we tend to only talk about it from a professional’s perspective. Even the creators of magic who are technically amateurs themselves often construct their effects with the professional in mind.

I have only ever been an amateur and have never wanted to perform magic professionally. And that perspective has allowed me to refine my performance of magic and discard the elements of presentation that just don’t apply to the non-pro. This book contains the insights I’ve gathered over the past 20 years performing for co-workers, acquaintances, strangers, friends, family, lovers, and the beautiful waitress who made me the iced chai latte.

On Leading Reactions

If, like me, you enjoy performing effects where you are not claiming to be the prime mover behind making the magic happen, then you need to learn how to properly react to your effects. I see this bungled far too often, and it's something I used to not be very good at myself because it was something I failed to think about.

Then, one night, I was at a bar in NYC and a guy I was there with had one of those pens that tips over after a while. He balanced the pen on the mouth of a beer bottle and said to one of the girls who was with us, "I want you to concentrate and send your energy to that pen." Now, that's fine. It's not some great presentation by any means, and I have my own thoughts on Spectator as Magician/Mentalist that this doesn't really align with, but that's a post for another day. 

So this girl looks at the pen, nothing happens, the guy says "really concentrate," she continues looking and the pen falls. Her mouth drops open and she turns to the guy and he kind of smirks and raises an eyebrow. And her reaction immediately changed. She pointed at him and said in a sing-songy voice, "That's a good one." 

I watched her go from thinking something crazy had just happened to knowing it was a trick, just based on this guy's reaction. Or lack thereof. That's the point: You have to react. 

If you're playing the part of the traditional magician, then feel free to play it cool after the effect. 

But if you're rejecting that role and instead you're showing them some strange object you found, or trying some experiment you read about, or doing something where they are manifesting the power, then you NEED to react, or the whole experience falls apart. Not reacting is just another way of saying, "That was me. I did that. I'm special." If that's your plan, just take credit for it from the beginning. That's a lot less scuzzy than this route which amounts to, "I'm going to put the focus on you [or some external thing] to capture your attention, but then when we're done I'm going to take the credit for it."

Whatever experience you're creating, if you're not taking direct responsibility for it, then it has to move you too. Why would you show someone something if the outcome of that thing had no affect on you?

Yeah, but Andy, why would I have her concentrate on the pen unless I know she would knock it over?

Well, that's the question you have to account for in your presentation. Maybe you have some conceptually intriguing idea behind your presentation. But you don't necessarily need one. It can just be, "Can we try this thing I read about? I've been trying it all day, but it's supposed to work better with someone like you." [Someone younger, older, left-handed, female, male, smarter, dumber, more intuitive, or whatever.]

The thing is, if you just act like you knew she'd be able to knock it over, then you're still playing the role of the magician. Except now your magic power is a stupid one. It's "being able to identify people who can knock over a pen with their mind."

But if the pen falls and you bring the fingers of both hands to your temples and—with your eyes wide—laughingly say, "What. The. Fuuuuuuuu... Are you kidding me?!" you're going to prolong the moment of mystery. Your reaction is a universal rep that you can use for most tricks. 

When your reaction is in harmony with the trick, you extend and amplify the experience of mystery for the spectator. If it's not, you just let them off the hook. 

You may feel uncomfortable because you think I'm suggesting you totally flip out or something. That's not what I'm saying (unless it's the type of trick that causes them to flip out, then I recommend you join in with their reaction). Here is the key regarding how to react. You want to consistently react a little bit stronger than they are. That is what I mean by "leading reactions." You are setting the pace. What I've found, particularly if I'm showing something to someone for the first time, is that people tend to be guarded with their reactions. Even if they see something amazing some people can feel, "Am I stupid for thinking that's amazing." So sometimes it will be your reaction that gives them the permission to lose their shit.

Again, you're meant to be leading. So I imagine it like leading someone on a walk through the woods. If you're behind them they can't follow you at all. If you sprint out way ahead of where they are, you can't guide them. But if you stay a little bit ahead and lead the way, you can show them someplace new and bring them somewhere they may never have gotten to on their own.

Coming in the JAMM #9

October's issue will feature some scary(ish) magic, just in time for halloween. Not like the kind where it's a normal card trick and I place the card in the deck and it comes to the top and OH MY GOD THERE'S A FAKE SPIDER ON YOUR HAND! But more like the creepy or at least headfucky kind. 

Included in this will be an article on The Seance as a performance style, and my favorite way to start a little mini-seance with people (or it could be used as a standalone effect).

You know the drill, if you haven't subscribed yet, you can subscribe to The JAMM here.