Coming in The JAMM #12

The final issue of the JAMM (for now, I may pick it up at some point in the future) is the New Year, New You issue, and it will feature three effects to (perhaps) empower your spectator to affect a positive change in their life. That may seem a little ambitious for a magic trick, but that's why I started writing my own magic magazine. So I'd have a place to put ambitious ideas. 

And in this case, it's true. While one trick is a pretty recent creation, and is something of a positive magical joke, the other two tricks are ones I've used over the past couple years with friends facing challenging situations. And a handful of times, these tricks have served as a tiny spark that blew up and led to life-changing actions by the spectator. No kidding.

You'll read all about it January, 6th.

A Critical Examination of Ellusionist's 2017 Holiday Gift Guide

I'm a big Ellusionist fan. It may not seem that way because I always have some comment to make about their latest mis-steps. But the reason I always have a comment to make is the same reason I'm a fan: they try. If you launched an online magic store in the early 2000s and you watched as Ellusionist and Penguin ate your lunch and you sat there wondering why you couldn't get any traction, it's likely because you just transplanted the brick and mortar magic shop model to an online presence. 

We like to romanticize the past, but let's face it, a lot of real world magic stores sucked shit. Many merely survived because they were the only magic store within a three hour's drive. That's not a business model that translates online. 

What Penguin and Ellusionist realized was that, in a crowded marketplace, you stand out with innovation and marketing. Did that lead to a lot of failed ideas? Sure, but it also brought on a ton of success as well.

Well, I don't know about that, Andy. Ellusionist just seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Let me ask you this, do you have pubic hair? You do? Okay, well then you're not their target audience.

You see, much like the producer behind the band Menudo

51AXQQHG5ZL (1).jpg

Or serial child molester Earl Bradley

Earl-Bradley.jpg

Ellusionist isn't really interested in you once you reach the age of, like, 14.

Not that they don't want you as a customer, they'll definitely still take your money, you're just not in the demo they're targeting.

This is evidenced in their giveaway this holiday season. Ellusionist wristbands.

Screen Shot 2017-12-10 at 11.25.16 AM.png

For every $50 you spend, you get one of these wristbands and, depending on which wristband you get, you get a specific prize as well. 

Andy, who would wear that garbage?

Read this ad copy. That will tell you.

wristband_05.jpg

It's for kids. In fact, it almost sounds like they transcribed the ramblings of that kid you went to school with who was a pathological liar.

45EEEE6700000578-0-image-a-1_1509621497624.jpg

So don't feel like you're out of the loop if Ellusionist's marketing schemes don't connect with you. They're not intended to, if you're an adult. 

In fact, I'd feel sorry for you if you're of voting age and you're like, "I can't wait to get my Ellusionist wristband!" I feel like the next stage in that thought process is you calling up their customer support and saying, "Yes, I was wondering if you make something with the same pattern, but in a noose size?" Because if you're a grown adult that's excited about wearing the Ellusionist logo and Daniel Madison's face on your wrist. Your future is pretty bleak.

Screen Shot 2017-12-10 at 12.04.39 PM.png

Let's look at a few of the other things Ellusionist has on their holiday gift guide

Screen Shot 2017-12-10 at 4.36.40 PM.png

Abyss

I mentioned this trick in a previous post. I'll reiterate what I said there which is, I don't think it's a very good trick, but if you like what you see in the trailer, then I'm sure you'll be happy with the product. 

One thing you need to consider is this: does it make any sense to alter an object magically and the change it back to its normal condition? In this trick you "remove" an angel from one end of a playing card and then... you put it back exactly where it was. This is a wildly unsatisfying structure for a trick. It's almost the definition of pointless. 

I'm reminded of tricks where you, for example, link two rings torn out of playing card. Then you say, "In fact, the only way to get them apart is to tear one of the rings." And you tear one of the rings to separate them. Or Osterlind's coin in bottle where he magically puts a coin in a bottle and then says, "In fact, the only way to get the coin out is for me to break the bottle." And then he breaks the bottle!

This sort of structure suggests a misunderstanding of what it is that captures the imagination with these types of routines. If you're going to alter something "magically" so that it's somehow a unique or impossible object, don't go and undo that. "But I have to for the sake of the method," you say. Well, then it's not a good trick. 

Imagine a story where a guy finds a magic fairy in a field who's willing to grant him one wish. "I wish for true love," he says. The fairy makes a beautiful woman appear and she immediately falls madly in love with the man. "In fact," the fairy says, "this love is so true and powerful that the only way for me to end it is to kill her." And she pulls out a gun and blows the woman's fucking head off.

That is, essentially, the same sort of story you're telling when you change something in a magic way, and then change it back so that it's a normal object.


Venom Levitation System

This produces some of the most amazingly magical looking levitations and animations that I've ever seen. I definitely considered picking this up, even though the set-up sounds fairly convoluted (it's two thread reels instead of one). The only thing that kept me from getting this were the reviews on the Cafe that suggested the thread is really visible and you need to get a completely different thread for this to be useable. For $150 I don't want to have to re-jigger these things to get them to work properly. If anyone has had experience with this and can let me know if the supplied thread is good or if swapping out the thread is less horrendous than it sounds like it would be, let me know, because I do like how good this looks.


The Villain System

From what I can tell, this is pretty much Harry Robson's Roughing Sticks, but perhaps a different formulation and it comes with a download with a few effects on it. 

My question is, did Daniel Madison forget his phony backstory? He was supposed to be an underground gambling phenom who left the "biz" because he got busted for cheating and then had the shit kicked out of him by some toughs in the world of underground gambling. And now he's shilling roughing sticks? That seems a little off brand. Unless maybe he tried to ring in a Mental Photography Deck into one of his illegal games. Maybe that's why he got his ass beat. 

For reference, here's Harry Robson, the other big name in roughing sticks. From looking at him, it might be a stretch to associate such a product with general badassery.

HarryRobson.jpg

As I said. Roughing sticks don't really seem on brand for Madison's character. What's next? Daniel Madison for Card-toon? "One of my proudest moments in the dingy world of high-stakes illegal gambling was when I was down 250 thousand dollars to Saudi Prince Majed bin Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. As he was gathering his stack of cash to leave, I said, 'Double or nothing. Would you believe me if I said I have a stickman on the back of this deck who can find your chosen card?'"


Chess Guess by Chris Ramsay

This is a "which hand" style of effect but with a chess piece rather than with a coin or something. I'm kind of worn out on the "which hand" stuff, and I don't want to carry around chess pieces, so it's not really my scene. But it looks like it should be good if that's what you're into.

I find this bit of the trailer a little odd. I'm pretty sure he says, "See, because you're a chess player, you think with your mind, right?"

"Hey... this guy's good! I do think with my mind!" 

That's some classic Chris Ramsay cold reading.


Madison Kitten Deck

I love the idea behind this deck. I think the execution could have been a little bit better, but I'll definitely be picking one up.

The idea is to make a gimmicked deck that looks like something that would be found at your grandma's house. 

When I first read about it, I was hoping for something like these.

765972fb9efa26af417241aecde04d92.jpg

That's what I think of when I think of an old cat deck. And I think I had been hoping it would be this kind of one-way back design. Maybe bridge size.

So when I saw the design they settled on and it didn't really capture the same spirit, I was a little bummed. But it's growing on me.

kittens-back.png

The box seems a little anachronistic. Like something you'd find at Spencer's Gifts, not in a grandmas junk drawer.

kittens-front.png

When I get my deck I'll probably ditch the box and wrap a few rubber bands around it instead. 

It's a marked deck and there are a couple of other gimmicks included as well. And it's just $9. So that seems like a pretty good deal. 


There you go. There are a few other items in the holiday guide. Some new decks that I have no comment on. A variation on Bob Farmer's Little Hand trick, but with a cat's paw. Not sure that's such a great idea, but I'll reserve judgment until it's actually released. And Clone which allows you to copy a spectator's signature on bills or cards. Obviously that could be an invaluable tool. I'm just waiting to hear if it's any good or not before shelling out $150.

So, all in all a kind of mixed bag. Definitely some interesting stuff, and some stuff that didn't do it for me. 

The preceding was a paid advertisement for Ellusionist.com.

No, I'm just messing with you. If Ellusionist had paid me to write this, I think there probably would have been a couple more positive reactions to the products released, and certainly one less reference comparing them to America's most prolific pedophile.

Gardyloo #43

tumblr_nzd8cr6jkV1r9qhhio1_1280.jpg

Hey, why can't it be both?

This is the first holiday season I've been around writing this site regularly. The first year of this site I ran old MCJ posts during December. The second year, I was between "seasons." But this year I'll be with you throughout the festive season. Don't forget to pause and enjoy it. 

But I'm not religious, Andy.

Me neither! But I like giving gifts and parties and eating food and singing songs and baking cookies and snowy moonlit walks and the smell of pinetrees and good will towards men and all that junk.


Guys, I know misdirection works. I know it's a fundamental tool of magic. And certainly in the flow of a routine it can be invisible. 

My point in my post earlier this week was this: If you have something that is an object of interest or suspicion and you pull focus from that object with (as Tommy Wonder says) something (a statement, a question, another object) that is "thoroughly intriguing," do not think you've fooled people when the original object is now changed in some way when they return their focus to it.

I was thinking about this because of the recently released trick by Phill Smith called Humint. This is a business card peek and a token that the spectator flips in order to decide if they're going to lie or tell the truth during a game of 20 questions. Phill gets the peek while the spectator is looking at the token. In my opinion, that's the wrong time to get it. This misdirection is actually too strong. His coin is a "thoroughly intriguing" object, and the fact of the matter is, even if the card with their word on it really was buried in the stack of business cards, it's not inconceivable that you could crack the stack open and peek at their word in that moment when their focus is thoroughly "misdirected."

This is, I think, this mistake in Tommy Wonder's essay where he says misdirection should be about, "Presenting something of greater interest that attracts attention." That's exactly what the audience's understanding of misdirection is. They're on guard for that. In my experience, the strongest misdirection of attention is done with something that is so dull as to be unmemorable. A secret move that is covered by the misdirection of a natural, forgettable action (adjusting your glasses or straightening a close-up pad), is going to result in a much more "magical" effect than a secret move that is covered by directing their attention to something more interesting (and therefore more memorable).

The problem is that there is a thin line between misdirection that is subtle enough to be forgotten, and that which is too subtle to work. This is the problem that occurs when you're trying to misdirect their attention.

That's why I think you're better off misdirecting the focus of their suspicion. You can't have "too much" misdirection of suspicion. 

I'm not sure if this is clear or not.

Imagine you have a coin in your hand and you want to make it vanish via misdirection.

Misdirection of Attention
Too little: A subtle gesture that doesn't cause your spectator's focus to leave your hand.
Too much: Fonzie walks in from the room and hits your tv like the jukebox in Happy Days and a porno starring your spectator's parents starts playing on the tv. When he turns back to you, the coin is gone.
Just right: A comment to your spectator causes a brief moment of eye-contact at the same time the coin rolls out the back of your fist into your breast pocket. 

It can be hard to hit that "just right" moment that lies between "I saw what you did" and "I missed it, but you obviously did something when I was distracted."

Misdirection of Suspicion
You encourage them to watch your hand as closely as possible but the coin still vanishes because they were watching the wrong hand from the beginning. 

You might say, But Andy, you're talking about something different than what we usually talk about when we consider "misdirection." 

Yeah. I know. That was my point, goofball. My point was just that we often resort to misdirection of attention to get an audience to look in the wrong location, when it might be a stronger technique to misdirect their suspicion to get them thinking in the wrong location.


Here's a genuine story that's ripe for use in some kind of routine.

Screen Shot 2017-12-07 at 4.09.26 PM.png

Maybe you have someone pull a card from a deck, you turn away while they look at the card and then turn back, have them re-insert the card and shuffle the deck. You spread the cards over the table and are able to find their card.

"Let me show you how I did it," you say.

You bring up that article about the cards. "I actually have one of these decks that's made with radioactive ink." You pull a second deck out of your pocket. "This was the deck you originally picked the card from. I switched it for this other deck when I turned around. So I had you replace the radioactive card into the normal deck. Now just by waving my hand over the cards I can find yours. It's just something you get a feel for. One of the cards will just radiate a different energy. Like, literally. It will give you like...hmmm... how do I put this... like a shooting pain through your spine? I guess that's how I'd put it. It's probably not great for you to be around this deck all day. And I can't imagine it's doing wonders for me in my pocket so close to my scrotum. But that's a small price to pay to be Mr. Cool Magician."

You then give them a wink and run your hand through your hair like a stud. You grimace a little and pluck out a handful of hair that apparently came out of your scalp. "Hmmm...," you say. You start moving your lower jaw back and forth and poking your tongue to the side of your mouth. Then you spit a tooth on the table. "Aw, crud," you say.

Method:

A fake tooth in the side of your mouth. Some hair that you can pull from your pocket at an opportune moment. (Put both hands in your pockets to get the second deck during "explanation," remove the deck first, then remove your other hand with the hair curled in your fingers.). And two identical decks of bicycle cards. One with the middle circle filled in with a marker that matches the back color so you can identify one card from a deck placed into the other.

[Thanks to David Thomas for sending the link my way.]


Here's a creative exercise for you. Go bak to Monday's post. Now reimagine the routine using these rubber bands.

Santa-gives-out-elastic-bands-in-shape-of-penises-739772.jpg

The readership here is primarily men, and I realize the holiday time can be stressful when it comes to knowing what to get for the women in your life. 

If you're anything like the typical magicians I've met, then I think I know the gift your wife is wanting—if not craving—this year. 

tumblr_oqjjkgWj5Y1ukcgfmo1_1280.jpg

Follow-Up & Update

I got a lot of positive feedback on yesterday's article on misdirection. It apparently bothered some people too. I guess because I was questioning Tommy Wonder or whatever. My bad! 

Here's the thing, I'll admit I don't have a ton of reverence for 20th century magic theory. But, to be fair to me, in that century the public's perception of magicians went from this:

"Magicians are people who can do amazing and strange things."

to this

"Magicians are amazingly strange people."

So while I'm happy to look to magic theory for guidance, ultimately, I'd rather just test things out and get genuine critical feedback from laypeople and then base my techniques on that. I want the audience to write my magic theory, not another magician. 

The good news is, I don't give a shit if you disagree with me. And, for that matter, I don't give a shit if you agree with me. So we're good either way. 

Jerx Deck Update

The paper proofs have been received. From what I've heard, we're still looking at getting the decks sometime around the new year. If that changes, I will let you know.

Redirecting Misdirection

There is a Tommy Wonder essay in The Books of Wonder that talks about misdirection that, I think, gets just about everything wrong. It starts off with a discussion saying we should call it "direction" rather than misdirection. His point being that we should focus on the thing we're trying to draw their attention to, rather the thing we're trying to draw their attention from. While this makes sense, it's also, essentially, just semantics. If you're "directing" someone towards something in order to take the focus off something else... that's misdirecting

He then writes:

[F]or our secret moves to avoid unwanted attention we must direct attention toward something else. From this it follows that we must have something else available at those times, something of interest. The more interesting this certain something is, the easier it will be to focus attention on it. The next time you wish to hide something, don’t think of hiding it, but rather think of what you can offer of interest in its place. Preferably this should be something thoroughly intriguing.

This is genuinely awful advice. 

Rattling your keys in front of the audience so you can do your secret move isn't misdirection. Nor is it "direction." It's simply distraction. 

Misdirection should be a secret action, but if I pull your focus to something "thoroughly intriguing," that's a very overt action. 

high-purity-bismuth-metal-crystal-buy-bismuth-crystal.jpg

Let's say you write something down on a card and fold it into quarters and hand it to me and I hold it in my right fist. With my left hand I bring out a bismuth crystal. I tell you that bismuth is the "bism" part of Pepto Bismol and that we can actually extract the element back out from Pepto Bismol caplets. This beautiful, iridescent, rainbow crystal is actually keeping you from shitting your pants when you have diarrhea. And just like it binds up your intestines to keep you from spewing brown gold everywhere, it can also bind up your thoughts to keep them from pouring out of the butthole of your mind, allowing me to catch a thought before it evaporates into the ether. I then "read your mind" and tell you what you wrote on the card.

How clever of me! When your focus was on the crystal I got my peek. And you had no clue. 

The problem, of course, is that while you might not have seen me get the peek, you know your attention was directed away from the card with the word on it. If your attention is shifted away and then something changes: the magician knows the word you wrote down, the ball has disappeared, the card is in the magician's pocket. Well... that's all the explanation you need. You don't need to know exactly how it happened, just that there was an opportunity where something could have happened. That will knock something down from a miracle to a clever trick.

I'm going to give you some advice that has been very, very helpful to me in creating effects that I think truly feel like genuine mysteries to the audience:

Don't think about misdirection as being about the direction of someone's focus or interest. Instead, think about it as the direction of someone's suspicion.

If I tell you I'm going to sneak into your house tonight, the Tommy Wonder style of using misdirection to accomplish that task would be to set off a fireworks show so I can sneak in while you're distracted.

The type of misdirection I'm recommending is akin to climbing in the window while you're guarding the door.

An audience can feel it when their attention is redirected from their natural locus of interest. When we did the testing on card peeks, the worst performing one was the one that occurred when the participant's focus was drawn away from the deck and the magician.

What does it look like to direct someone's suspicion? Here's an example. When you use an impression pad, it can feel very clean and neat to have them write down a word, tear off the sheet, fold it up and put it in their pocket. Why wouldn't you do this given the pad allows you to? Well, one reason you might not want to do it is that now the pad is the only item in play that could offer a clue to what they wrote. Given that, your peek of the impression can't be awkward at all or else you're intensifying the suspicion on the pad, which is exactly where you don't want it.

But if you don't allow them to pocket their word—if, for example, you ask them to fold it up and let you hold it in your fist—their primary focus of suspicion is on something that's genuinely clean (your hand holding the paper). You're never going to do anything sneaky there, but that's where they would assume something sneaky would happen. So when you pick up the pad with your other hand, open it to the impression, peek the word, let a few pages fall over the impression, then set it down to write or draw on it—even if you do this awkwardly (which you likely will because you're doing it with one hand)—it won't seem strange because the focus of their suspicion is the paper in your other hand. They're waiting for you to try and get a peek at that. And when you never come anywhere near opening your fist to look at the paper, then they're at a dead end.

In this case, the folded up paper is the door they're guarding and the pad is the window I'm sneaking through. But that's an imperfect analogy, because if done correctly, they don't even know the window exists. All of a sudden you're just in the house with them.

By directing their attention with suspicion, rather than with interest, you get to use the power of their skepticism and distrust against them. On the other hand, if your focus is on directing their attention by focusing on that which is fleetingly interesting, you're just encouraging them to slough off the mystery by putting it down to mere distraction.

Issue #11

Coming tomorrow night to subscribers’ email-boxes, The JAMM #11. 

I like this one a lot. While the theme of the issue is using magic in the context of gift-giving, a number of the ideas provided can be utilized in a much broader range of contexts. The tricks that bookend the issue present frameworks that you can use for a number of different effects. 

Below is our JAMM Muse for December, Amanda, with a festive take on this James Randi promo shot.

we-spoke-to-james-randi-about-magic-fraud-and-the-new-biopic-about-his-life-303-body-image-1425403973.jpg
JAMM11.jpg

The Four Stars

bands-stars1-500x500.jpg

In the 90s, those star-shaped rubber bands came out and everyone thought, "Ah! I know! I'll do that thing where I weave a star out of a rubber band, but I'll do it with one of these. And then it will seem like the band magically became the star shape!" It's a pretty obvious idea. But what it lacks in originality it makes up for in simplicity and the fact that people seem to enjoy the trick. And it makes for a mildly cool souvenir.

I used to do this so much that one time, at a party, two women I had performed it for bumped into each other. They both had their star band on their wrist. Apparently it bummed them out. They had thought they were special. They were special. But me making them a star rubber band wasn't evidence of that.

It's also an ideal way to distract a kid who's spazzing out on a plane or something. I don't have a ton of stuff in my repertoire that's as good for kids as adults, but this is one of those things. 

I don't consider this some mind-bending miracle. But it's always something I thought was fun to perform in low-key situations. And I have a couple of things to add to the effect that may interest some of you. One is a way to bring in both rubber bands in a manner that makes it seem like both have been examined. The other is the story that goes along with it. It's just a dumb little spiel, but it affords me the opportunity to do my favorite style of presentation where I get to act like an idiot and brag about something stupid.

I'll start with the presentation first then give you details on the move I use to allow them to seemingly see both rubber bands as normal.

The Four Stars

I have two rubber bands on my wrist (just two). Occasionally someone would ask me what they were there for.

"Oh, I do rubberbandigami," I'd say quickly, like it was a thing, while keeping my attention on the tv or my drink or whatever.

"What?" they'd ask.

"Rubberbandigami," I'd say again. Then I'd turn my attention to them completely. "Wait... do you not know about rubberbandigami? Oh my god... you don't pay any attention to the world around you, do you? Rubberbandigami is like, sweeping the country. Well, the world, actually. Everyone is doing it."

I then rattle off a few celebrities. The first one is already dated and it only gets worse from there.

"Yeah, everyone. Jamie Lynn Spears. 'Blanket' Jackson. Jonathan Lipnicki. Adam Rich."

060611MSMO079.jpg

"I'll show you."

I pull one of the rubber bands off my wrist and toss it on the table. 

"Take a look. It looks like a regular rubber band, yeah? That's because it is. But rubberbandigami is about doing something extraordinary with them. It's about twisting and weaving them into photo-realistic representations of other items. I'm not bragging, but I'm pretty good at it."

I then demonstrate some rubberbandigami for them.

A piece of pizza

IMG_4449.jpg

An hourglass

IMG_4452.jpg

A uterus

IMG_4468.jpg

"You can do it with multiple rubber bands too. Which actually makes it easier because there's more material to work with."

I pull the second band off my wrist and hand it to the person. 

"It just uses normal rubber bands that you can get at Staples or wherever."

"There's a ranking system. It's like karate with their belts. Except here the ranking is based on stars. Once you progress your way through the star system, and learn how to construct each star, you're considered a master rubberbandigamist. That's where I am."

"I'll show you. Here's level one. Two rubber bands. Two hands. One star."

IMG_4472.jpg

"Next is level two. That's two rubber bands. Two hands. Two stars." 

IMG_4484.jpg

"Level three is much more difficult because it uses one less rubber band. Can you hold this one in your fist for me? I'll show you something cool with that in a minute. Level three is one rubber band. One hand. One star. There are about three dozen people in the world who have reached this level. That looks like this...."

IMG_4499.GIF

"Finally," I say, "is level four. Six people have attained level four status. Level four is: One rubber band. One star. NO hands. Let's see if I can get this."

I toss the band in my hands aside and breathe deeply a few times and then catch my breath and hold it, then let it out after a few moments. 

"I think I got it," I say. "Open up your hand." She does and finds a rubber band in a permanent star shape.

You can find instructions for the different star shapes on youtube, I'm not going to go through that here. 

I will describe the one move in the routine which is something I came up with myself, but I don't have much background in rubber band magic and it certainly could be part of the literature and I'll happily give credit if someone can provide it.

So I have two rubber bands on my left wrist (more than two makes the upcoming move less clean). One of the bands is a star band. I take off the normal band and hand it to the spectator to look at. I take it back and then make a few shapes with it on my left hand. When I'm done I leave it wrapped around my left hand at the base of my fingers.

I then say, "You can add another rubber band too." And grab and pull up on the star band on my wrist with my middle finger and ring finger of my right hand.

I start pulling that band off my wrist and as I'm passing the band on my fingers, I pinch that band between the forefinger and thumb of my right hand and drop the other band off my right-hand fingers, leaving it in place of the original band that was wrapped around my left palm.

Here's what it looks like in motion. 

IMG_4496.GIF

To say this happens on the offbeat is an understatement. It happens before anyone even knows a trick is going to happen. So there is no heat on the move at all. 

Here it is with different colored bands so the switch is clearer. 

IMG_4497.GIF

And here's a kind of slowed down version from behind.

IMG_4498.GIF

It's a fun little 2-3 minute bit. Give the star away as a souvenir and people will say of you, as the Spinners did of that other Rubberband Man:

Oh boy, this dude is outta sight!
Everything he does seems to come out right