The Good Will Hunting Book Test

Maarten Bosmans is a magician from Belgium who initially reached out to me a year and a half ago to tell me The Jerx was his second favorite blog. Now, I don't hold a grudge, but eat shit, Maarten, this is the best blog ever written. 

Maarten is a huge movie fanatic (his favorite blog is scriptshadow.net) and he likes to create material inspired by movies. 

He recently sent along an idea for a book test based on this scene from Good Will Hunting.

First I'm going to briefly explain his idea and his methodology which would work well in a stage or parlor context, and then I'm going to explain my ideas on a similar type of effect in a social or amateur magic presentation. Even if you're not drawn to this particular effect, you may find some ideas in here that you could use in some other context.

The Basic Idea: In a traditional book test your participant will think of a word or phrase and then you will tell them what they're thinking of. Simple.

In this version what you'll be demonstrating is a profound familiarity with a certain subject matter or series of books. Briefly, let's say you have 20 books piled on a table on stage. Your spectator will freely select one (true) and freely select a page (kind of true) without you knowing either (untrue). They will then read off the first four words on that page. You are blindfolded and/or turned away.

"The fireflies were all...," your spectator says. 

"'The fireflies were all. The fireflies were all...," you mumble. "Oh...'The fireflies were all over the place as the sun came up.' Yes, that's referring to John Glenn as he reaches the Canton Island tracking point. That's The Right Stuff by Tom Wolfe... page two-hundred sixty eight."

The Good Will Hunting Book Test - Do You Like Apples? Stage Version by Maarten Bosmans 

I consider this a stage version because it uses props you would find in a stage show (forcing bags, folios, blindfolds—don't fret if you don't use these things in performance, neither do I, you'll see in the next section). 

His basic method is to give people a free choice of book, followed by a limited choice of page number, and then you use a crib to determine what words come next.

Let's say before the show starts you ask your audience to write down a few numbers between 0 and 400 on individual slips of paper. They can write as many numbers as they like and these slips are dropped in a bag or a box. During the course of the effect, it will seem your spectator has a free choice of these slips written by the audience but really they will be forced to choose one with particular numbers on it using a clear forcing bag or an Amazebox. 

So let's say they're forced a slip of paper with these numbers on it: 48, 183, and 349.

You are blindfolded and you ask them to pick up any one of 20 books (or more) that are on display, and to open the book to any page number they want from the "random" slip they chose.

Now, you'll know what book they chose (because you can see through the blindfold) and you'll know what page they're on by seeing if they open towards the beginning, middle, or end of the book. 

Next, you need to access your crib. Maarten suggests using Banachek's Psychic Pad Folio or Force 4 by Wayne Rodgers. I don't know how either of these things work, but from context clues I'm guessing it's something you could open one way to look at your crib and open another to show just a blank pad. In Maarten's version he has the spectator say the first four words and then he writes down what the fifth word is on the pad (before going on to relay the rest of the sentence verbally) and he peeks the crib at some point before that. He also has a subtlety where he opens up the folio towards someone and asks if there's anything written on the top sheet (remember, he supposedly can't see). Perhaps there's a word on it (from a previous performance) and they rip the page off for him. Then when he opens it towards himself the next time he's peeking the crib on what was just seen as an innocent blank pad.

From there you do the reveal in any way you choose.

Now... let's take a look at a different version. 

The Good Will Hunting Book Test - Miss Misery Amateur Version 

While I like Maarten's idea, I know that I'll probably never have an opportunity to perform something that used a blindfold, a folio, and some sort of switching/forcing device, so I wanted to work on a variation that didn't use those objects. The other potential issue with Maarten's version is that because it's a book test that uses your own books, they might just assume you have some strong familiarity with the books. And because the presentation is not about something supernatural, and actually is about having a strong familiarity with the books, then it might not be as powerful a trick as it could be otherwise.

So what I decided was to work on a version that didn't use any props I didn't normally have with me. And to try and do it in situations where I could use other people's books. 

I've had a chance to perform this twice in the past couple of weeks and it went over very well both times. 

The basics of the effect are the same as Maarten's with some small differences. I'm still going to limit their page selection and I'm still going to use a crib. But with this version you don't need to know what book they've chosen or what page they've turned to.

We're going to limit their page selection down to two pages per book, but in a way that I think seems pretty fair. You might say, "Unless they can open the book to any page they want, it's going to feel contrived and unfair." And, in a way, you're right. If you have a way to do a book test by allowing someone to open to any page in any of their own books, then that's certainly something I would prefer. But since I don't have a way to do that, we're going to have to use a bit of procedure for that part. 

Here's a tip for this sort of thing: If you have to use procedure when something more straightforward would be more logical, then don't announce why you're doing the procedure until after you do it. 

For example, don't say, "We need to come up with a random number of cards to deal, so I want you to roll these two dice and use the two digits to make a random number." You're giving people too much time to sit with the procedure and feel that it is a needlessly complicated way of determining a random number. 

If instead you say, "Roll these two dice a few times and stop whenever you want.... Now I want you to use the two numbers on top of the dice to create a two digit number. If you had rolled again, you would probably have different numbers, right? I couldn't have known what numbers you would roll, and you didn't know what numbers you would get either, correct? So it's a truly random number, it's not a favorite number or a number that has meaning to you or a number everyone thinks of, correct?" And you get them agreeing to all this stuff that makes the number seem truly unknowable/unpredictable. "Now we're going to deal off this random number of cards...." See? Only now do you say what the number is going to be used for. And at this point you're already on the move. Things are progressing. It's more difficult for a spectator to think, "Well, why did we choose a random number that way?" because their mind is occupied with other things at that point. 

We're going to use a similar technique to limit their page selection in a way that might not feel completely straightforward, but I don't think it feels anywhere near as limiting as it really is. 

The Two Certainties Page Force

Here's what it looks like. You take a borrowed deck of cards and remove the 10s, Jacks, Queens, and Kings and give the spectator the number cards (Aces being 1s) to shuffle. They shuffle them however they like. Cut the cards. Remove three cards from where they cut. Arrange those three numbers in their head in any way they like to create a page number and turn to that page number in the book. 

That's genuinely how it looks, and yet they will be forced to one of two page numbers in the book. 

Here's the procedure (I came up with this myself, but would not be surprised if there is a precedent for it). You take a shuffled deck and openly outjog the 10s, Js, Qs, and Ks. As you are doing this you cull a 2,6 and 8 to the top of the deck.

Strip out the the outjogged cards, turn the deck over and place the face up cards on top of the deck. Spread through them, ostensibly to make sure you got all 12 cards out that you were trying to (the idea here is that you're removing the faces and tens so they just have the number cards). Spread the first three face-down cards (the 2, 6 and 8) and get a pinky break under them. Square the cards and lift off your face-up picture cards and the three face-down cards below them. Give the number cards to your spectator to shuffle. As they shuffle, you fiddle around with your cards and eventually get a break above the three face-down cards at the bottom of your packet. Transfer your cards and your break to a right hand biddle grip/thumb break.

Ask for the number cards to be placed on your left yand. Tell your spectator to cut off a packet of cards. Gesture with your right hand (in front of your left hand), for them to set that packet on the table. As they do this you pull your right hand packet back and as it briefly passes over the left hand and the three cards are dropped on the left hand packet (this is the John Bannon SWAK (Swindled With a Kiss) technique, I think it's probably more fooling because the cards in your right hand seem to be all face up). Now extend your left hand and ask them to slide off the three cards "from where you cut to."

They will have a 2, 6 and 8. As long at the books in play have less than 627 pages, they will be forced to choose either 268 or 286. (You could use 2, 8 and 9 and you'd be safe with books up to 828 pages.)

If you feel like you need to, you can retcon the number selection. You can imply that using the cards makes it truly random. And that maybe you could have guessed what numbers they would think if they thought of a number on their own. Or maybe the book tends to open to a particular page if they were just to riffle through it. I don't really know if it's necessary or not. I'm not sure if justifying it puts undue emphasis on it. Because there's a free choice of book, and because there is still a choice involved in how they arrange the numbers, and because they apparently came from a shuffled packet of cards, I probably won't attempt to justify the procedure unless someone asked why we did it that way.

I'm going to switch to first person now.

At this point I would walk into an adjoining room and put myself in a corner like the Blair Witch Project. "I'm not going to turn around or even look in your direction. You can watch and make sure my face is planted in this corner the whole time. I want you to peek at your cards and arrange the numbers in any order in your mind to make a page number. Then I want you to flip to that page in any book on your bookshelf and go to the first full sentence on the page and read out the first four words of that sentence. If any of the words give away what the book is, skip to the next sentence. Like if it says, 'Then Moby Dick said,' just go to the next sentence. I don't think Moby Dick actually says anything in that book, but you get what I'm saying. Try your best to shield everything from me and keep your eyes on me to make sure I never turn around."

This was the little speech I gave my friend the first time I performed the trick. I had been staying with her and her husband at their home in Pennsylvania. On the shelf in the room I was sleeping in were about a dozen literary classics. She was in the room while I was facing a corner in the hallway.

"'Or do you kiss,'" she said.

"Hmmmm. Uhm... oh... 'Or do you kiss my hand in the spirit I once let you kiss my cheek?' That's Estella in Great Expectations. Charles Dickens. Page... 268?" I said, as I turned around to face her.

(Earlier in the day, when she asked how I slept I said I hadn't been tired so I stayed up memorizing the books in my room.)

Where was the crib? I'll get to that. First, let me describe the crib. It isn't like Maarten's crib where you know the book and the page and then you're looking for the correct word. I didn't know the book or the page until she said what the first four words were. I then have my crib with all the four word phrases listed in alphabetical order. I just look down for the one that begins "or do you kiss" and look to see the book, page number, and rest of the line (which you don't have to get perfectly).

I created the crib on my phone. It took me about a minute per book. So I did a dozen books the night before in under 15 minutes.  As I walk into the corner, the phone is in my shirt pocket. At this point in time I'm still holding the picture cards in my hand and my hands are spreading them, riffling them, cutting them, etc, as I've been doing this whole time. Once I get to the corner I pop the pop the phone out of my pocket and just hold it on top of the deck as I continue to spread and riffle the cards and making noise with them. From the back it just looks like I'm messing with cards, but I actually have the phone on and open to my crib. As soon as the four words are named I scroll to that line with my thumb and get the info, and then pocket my phone back in my shirt pocket. 

Putting myself in the corner comes across as me being extra clear that I'm not peeking. But really I'm just hiding what I'm actually doing. As I turn back towards my friend, my hands are just holding the deck and my eyes are closed as if I'm thinking. It looks very innocent.

If you have good eyesight, obviously a printed crib could work very well too.

Now, the second time I performed this I actually did it impromptu and crib-less. I was in a friend's bathroom and they had three books in there. I took a shit and memorized the six force lines.

Later, when asked to perform a trick I had them select three cards and one of the people there took them, sight unseen, and went into the bathroom and closed the door. Everyone else was outside the bathroom with me. 

"Take the cards from your pockets and create a three digit page number," I said. "Open to that page in any book in there and read the first four words on the page to me."

"'Finally after what seemed,'" the person on the other side of the door said.

"Hmm," I said, "That's in a couple of the books. Can you read any other three or four words on that page?"

"'I dropped it,'" she said.

"Oh, sure...ok...'Finally after what seemed.'... 'Finally after what seemed like a forever of running, someone said, 'I think we lost them.'' That's from Wonder by RJ Palacio. That's on page...265? No.. 268, yes?"

It's strong stuff.

If the four words seem sort of generic, then I would have them read a couple other words off the page.

Yes, but Andy, won't they ask you to complete that sentence or another one in the book or something? If you really memorized the books, wouldn't you be able to do it again. Or just start reading off the book from memory?

That's only an issue if they're taking it all too seriously. If they are, I recommend this line: "I'm just kidding around ding-dong. It's a trick. I didn't memorize the books when I was taking a dump."

Once people know you well enough to know you're not trying to impress them with your mega-brain, they don't feel the need to challenge you as much.

Notes:

The My Boy is Wicked Smaht Variation

I think using the spectator's books makes this very strong. But I'm also thinking of making a crib that includes every book I own on a shared google spreadsheet. Then when someone visits we can do a skype call with this "genius" friend of mine who seemingly has read every book  ever and can remember almost everything about them. They select a book and page without me knowing and we ring him up. My friend says the four words from seemingly a random page from one of many, many books and he can end up finishing the quote, naming the exact page, etc. All he has to do is subtly scroll through the spreadsheet as we interact.

Even people who agree with my presentational esthetic often don't understand why I'd want to have someone else perform the trick. The reason is because I don't necessarily care if someone thinks I'm the one responsible for all these weird things. I like the idea that I can be a tour guide showing them strange objects and experiences and introducing them to these weird people who are capable of some unbelievable things. 

✿

I'm also thinking of setting up a crib for books in a certain section of the local public library. Like a section that doesn't change much. Like books about ferns or something. And then I can say how I used to be obsessed with ferns and read every book on them endlessly as a kid to the point where I have them almost memorized.

✿

I think the page force is almost strong enough to do the effect with one book. And then you'd have to only memorize two sentences. Although maybe not. I don't know.

✿

If I had a legit stage show, here's what I'd do. People would be encouraged to bring a book with them to the show. The first 10 or 20 people who had books with them could place them on a table on stage before the show began. As people filed in, I would be onstage flipping through the books very quickly. My phone in my pocket would be shooting video and I would make sure to stop at the three force pages briefly in each book. Then someone backstage (Joshua Jay or whoever I have working for me) could make up the crib from the video during the first half of the show. And then you'd have a really kind of mindboggling book memorization feat with borrowed books with "random" page numbers generated by the audience.

✿

One of the greatest footnotes to Good Will Hunting is that Elliott Smith was nominated for an Oscar for Miss Misery, a low-key indie-pop song. It was up against My Heart Will Go On by Celine Dion from Titanic, and was such a contrast to that bombastic, overplayed, shitty song.

Smith didn't want to perform at the Oscars originally, but he felt compelled to because he was told the song would be performed whether he sang it or not. As he said, "Yeah, at first, I thought, ‘I don’t think that’s a good idea,’ But they said if I didn’t sing the song, they’d get someone else to sing it ... like Richard Marx. It was like, ‘Well, then again ... I could do it!'" 

There's really no good quality video of his Oscar's performance, but here's the best I could find.

(Here's the original. (You lose the harmonies on the Oscars version.) If you don't know Elliott Smith, he's one of the best singer-songwriters of the past 50 years. Heavily influenced by the Beatles, his voice and guitar playing are amazing and often chill-inducing. And pretty much every album is a masterpiece. (You won't have trouble catching up with his catalog. He killed himself in 2003. Or did he?))

Schedule

Tomorrow's post will be up in the afternoon. It's an interesting book test variation that I think you might like (or at least there might be some ideas in it that you find valuable).

Next week is spring break here at the Jerx. No new posts during that time. I'll be at Lake Havasu ripping beer bongs with my boys in Beta Theta Pi.

On April 17th, the first issue of what I think I'm still calling X-Communication comes out for all Season 3 supporters. It's essentially a product review newsletter but because it's a quarterly publication it doesn't make sense to try to limit myself to the newest products. So there's going to be a mixture of new stuff, old stuff, and individual effects I've plucked from books and videos. This first issue has a much more narrative feel than you might expect. I'm not sure if that's the direction I'm going to go in with future issues or if it's just the way this one turned out. We'll see. In the coming issue I'll be writing about a really strong but overlooked live lecture from last year, one of my favorite marked decks, some words of wisdom I received during one of our focus groups about a mentalism tool everyone seems to be using that perhaps they shouldn't be, a new utility prop I really like from a company you've never heard of, and a look at some variations on a relatively new plot in magic (I'll direct you to my favorite version on a forgotten DVD from a few years ago), plus a bunch of reviews and jokes about my genitals or someone else's genitals.

Later, dudes.

Target Rich Environments

In February, after I talked about the “social magic” concept, I got an email from a reader named Bruce who had some qualms about the term. After further posts on the subject he wrote me the following.

“Your 2/19 post helped to clarify the concerns I expressed to you. But it did so oddly, by allowing me to aim a critical eye back at myself. I may not be exactly the right guy for the style you advocate, not because of my concerns about deception, which in retrospect would be easily overcome, nor because of any flaws in the philosophy, but by the fact that I don’t have much of a social life! These days, I live a nearly hermetic existence. So... never mind.

As you’ve said, most magic is like most stand-up comedy. As I understand it, your style is almost directly analogous to improv comedy.

...

As I see your style of magic, your friends and acquaintances are performing with you (just as we all do with friends in any pleasant social situation), and your strength, which they accept and say “Yes, and” to is that you will bring some joy and wonder to their lives through some play with their expectations and perceptions.

I’d say your ideal audience consists of people you know and who know you, because you can tailor your effects to their tastes, and they can more openly accept and eagerly anticipate what’s happening because they trust you. You know the troupe, and they know you.”

He’s right. There’s certainly less value in this site if you’re not someone who has—or at least someone who wants—a fairly large social circle. I’m not, by nature, a social person. While I’m very comfortable around people, I don’t “need” social interaction. If someone was like, “We’re going to lock you in a cabin for 6 months with no one to talk to and you can’t use your phone or the internet to reach out to anyone.” I’d be like,

So in my early days, I was pretty content to be a student of magic and the means of deception and only occasionally perform. Performing felt awkward to me. Like I was seeking validation or acknowledgment, when really I didn't want either.

It was only when I stumbled into the concept of shifting the focus off myself that I started performing regularly. When the underlying idea shifted from, “Look what I can do!” to, “Hmmm… check this weird thing out,” the neediness was gone from the presentation.

And without that barrier I performed a lot more. And while I’m still someone who is almost pathologically self-sufficient in most regards, performing for others has become my main focus because it turns out it's 20 times more fun to do than just studying magic in theory.

It’s not analagous to the difference between sex and masturbation. It’s the difference between sex and reading about sex.

It’s certainly possible to read my writing on magic and think that I believe in performing out of some altruistic motive of “giving people a magical experience.” But the truth is, I've found that it's a ton of fun to engage people with magic and show them something they've never seen before. If it wasn't fun for me, I probably wouldn't bother with it.

So yeah, there’s a strong social element to this style. It’s not something you do for yourself or with your other magic buddies. And if reaching out to others isn’t something you’re comfortable with, it’s just not going to be a style you’re interested in.

---

I wanted to talk briefly about cultivating an audience for this style of performance. As Bruce astutely noted in his email, when performing the most immersive types of effects, you are effectively asking them to join in on the performance. You might think your friends might not be into that sort of thing. They might not be. Your co-workers or school-mates might not be either. I’ve worked in offices where everyone is tremendously warm and ones where people are very distant. It’s kind of the luck of the draw there.

I do believe you can kind of “train” people to get into this style of performing, whoever they are, as long as you build up to it, but it’s much easier if you put yourself in a target rich environment.

Target Rich Environments

I like to perform in coffee shops and at dinner parties and in the dining cars on trains. But these aren’t target rich environments. You still have to put in effort and get people in the right head-space for a performance.

Here’s what I mean by “target rich” by way of an analogy. If you were trying to meet women to get laid, I might direct you to a bar or a club, or maybe we’d go a little outside-the-box and hit up the library or the supermarket. Those might be “good” places to meet a woman. But if I sent you to a whorehouse or a women’s prison, those would be “target rich” environments where you would almost certainly get banged.

Target Rich Environments for good magic audiences are places where people come to be social and creative (especially if there’s an element of roleplay).

Here are some examples;

Improv Class: This is the women’s prison of potential magic audiences. I’m not talking about performing during the class itself. But after class when people will generally go out to socialize, that is an ideal time. People who take improv classes tend to be creative and relatively intelligent and, more importantly, up for anything. They’ll play along with whatever you’ve got. They’re not going to bristle at shuffling your invisible deck when 20 minutes before they were pretending to be a retarded raccoon.

Community Theater: I’m not an actor and, generally, I don’t love people who self-identify as actors (unless that’s their actual job). But while you do run into weirdos with bloated egos, small theater groups are also full of playful, nice people as well. And there’s often a lot of socializing time that is perfect for introducing magic into. I’m not suggesting you go and try out for Bye Bye Birdie if acting isn’t your thing. If you’re even semi-competent and not a total flake you can contribute behind the scenes in a number of ways.

Tabletop Board Game Groups: Go on meetup.com and find yourself a group in your area or start one yourself. Having people seated around a table, playing games, and often playing characters within those games… you’re really 80% of the way there. Transitioning to magic is very easy. And I’m going to make it even easier for you.

One of the biggest and highest rated games of the past few years is called Mysterium. It’s a cooperative game where one player is a ghost (who can’t speak) and the other players are all mediums trying to figure out how the person died. It has elements of Clue, but the gameplay is much different.

A game with ghosts and psychics that deals with non-verbal communication is rich with opportunities to pull the subject matter off the tabletop and into the room.

These are just some options. I'm not suggesting you need to adopt some new hobby in order to find people to perform for. As I said, I think it's possible to turn almost anyone into a magic fan. But if you're someone who is struggling to establish a cast of willing participants for your magic, then seeking out places where people go to be social and creative is an easy way to find readymade audiences who are already on a similar wavelength.

Gardyloo #52

I'm bummed that Daniel Madison has left Ellusionist. That pairing led to a lot of ridiculousness that I'm afraid we'll miss without one feeding into the other.

At least they left us with the release of the new pink Madison Rounders deck of cards as a final goodbye. 

Ooooohhh my god... can you imagine? Those sick, twisted, hilarious minds at Ellusionist and the truly fucked up joke that they were going to release... it's hard to even say it with a straight face... a pink deck of cards. 

Hahahahaha! Oh my god! You win April Fools, Ellusionist! I can't even wrap my mind around such a deviously hilarious April Fool's Day Joke. I can hardly even imagine how that played out.

Ellusionist: We're going to release the Madison Rounders in Pink.

The World: Oh.... okay.

Ellusionist: Hahaha, you idiots, we totally got you!

Fortunately, I got a transcription of the meeting where the concept for the joke first came up. 

Voice 1 - Good morning, everyone. In this meeting we need to come up with a brilliant April Fool's Day joke.

Voice 2 - How about a deck of cards that's really a dirty diaper?

Voice 3 - How about fake vomit, but it's made of real vomit?

Voice 4 - What if we said we were going to release a deck of cards in pink?

[Laughter all around.]

Voice 3 - Oh my god!

Voice 5 - You're demented!

Voice 2 - HAHA. As if us, a bunch of real men, would use a deck that's a couple shades lighter than the deck we use all the time! What are we... a bunch of grade-A queers or something!?

Voice 4 - Yeah RIGHT!

Voice 3 - Oh... my... god, you guys. Stop! This is funny. We're too funny!

Voice 6 - Everyone who saw it would just be like, "Wait... what?" It would be funny because pink is totally a gay color and we're definitely not gay! 

[Dead silence for a moment.]

Everyone - Right. Right. Exactly. Of course. 

Voice 1 - You know what? I think it would also be funny... you know... as an April Fool's Day Joke if... I don't know... I'm just thinking out loud here. Maybe you could all take off your pants and stand in a circle and jack off onto the last bite of my bagel. And then I could eat it and be like, "Oh god, this is the best thing I've ever had. Oh yum. It's so good." Do you think we should do that? As a funny joke?

Voice 6 - And...like... film it for the site or something? 

Voice 1 - Uhm... no. This would more be like a private April Fools Day joke. Just for us to do now and never talk about it to anyone. It's funny because it's so ridiculous to think we could ever be into such a thing. 

Voice 3 - Like how we'd never use a pink deck.

Voice 1 - Exactly.

[Sound of belts unbuckling and pants hitting the floor.]

---

---

Okay, here's something I've been working on, and I'm about 65% of the way there, but it occurred to me that this is probably not an original idea and maybe someone has already found a way to take it 100% of the way there. So if you know of a reference you can direct me too, please do. [Update: Got my answer. It's Joe Givan. Thanks everyone who wrote.]

The idea is you bring out a small black close-up pad and four white buttons and then you do a matrix effect with the buttons so they all end up under one card. Then you ask someone to put the four buttons back in a square formation and they find the buttons are all sewn in place. The end. Sort of...

Next you show the close-up pad is actually a t-shirt wrapped around a small board of some kind and you'd have this shirt with four buttons sewn in a square shape that you could throw on or give to someone else as a little odd memento.

Certainly someone must have done a matrix effect with buttons before, and the obvious finale is to have them sewn in place. Any leads on if/where this is published somewhere? I'd rather not invest too much time if someone has already worked out the kinks.

[As I mentioned, a number of people wrote in to say Joe Givan had explored this plot. And then I heard from the man himself.

I have done this effect in lectures since the ’80’s and have had the effect complete with props on the market since at least 1985.  It’s called “Keep ‘Em in Stitches”. 

Another note - a magician in the UK took the effect and ran with it, doing a whole act inspired by the effect.  It won him 1st place in close-up at the Magic Circle competition.  I believe his name is Harold Cataquet.  He had a segment doing the effect with buttons on his vest.]

---

Here's a fun prank for April Fools. 

Sneak into someone's room and break the lightbulb that's in their ceiling lighting fixture. It needs to be an incandescent light bulb, and you need to leave the filament intact so the light still works. 

Now you want to get a firecracker and set it up so its fuse is in contact with the filament.

The body of the firecracker should be taped to a little plastic sandwich bag that is thumb-tacked to the ceiling.

Inside the bag should be a couple days worth of rancid shit and some piss.

Now, when your target comes in the room, they'll turn on the light, the light will ignite the fuse, which will explode the firecracker, destroying the baggie, and sending piss and shit raining down on them from above. 

Lots of fun will be had by all. 

---

Hope you all have a terrifying Easter.

My Favorite Single-Take Music Videos

I'm a connoisseur of stuff shot in a single take. A lot of music videos are done in this style and below are some of my favorites (favorites in the sense I like the video and it's matched up with a song I love too).

From Your Mouth by God Lives Underwater

You take a competitive eater, have him eat a bunch of shit, then run it backwards so he's pulling a ton of food out of his mouth. Simple idea executed well. And somehow this song is 20 years old.

This Too Shall Pass (Marching Band Version) by OK Go

OK Go is the king of this genre of music video. They have another video for this song that is a one-take Rube Goldberg machine. But I'm giving this version the nod because not only is it one take, but it's also performed live.

Try by Michael Penn

Shot by Paul Thomas Anderson in what is supposedly the longest hallway in North America. Love it.

Love Letters by Metronomy

Directed by Michel Gondry. The band is in a six sided box with different artwork on each side which puts them in different scenarios as the camera travels around the outside of the box. You don't get the full effect until the 2 minute mark. 

The Underdog by Spoon

One long steadi-cam shot around the studio while the band and a bunch of percussionists play. The best part of this song is figuring out the syncopation of the hand claps in the chorus and joining in.

Darling, It's True by Locksley

One of the more creative variations on a single-take video that I've seen, paired with one of my favorite songs of all time. Great song, great energy, great video.

Moon Barks At Dog

In the last post I wrote, "People don’t actually have to believe the narrative of the effect. They can understand it’s all fiction and still get caught up in it."

This presentation is an example of that. 

Moon Barks At Dog

This has been one of my favorite things to do the past few months, although I don't know if anyone else will be into it. It is a highly unbelievable premise. These are my favorite presentations because I can be 100% serious about them without any concern that someone might think I'm actually making some kind of claim that I want them to believe. I don't mind muddying the waters about what's real and what's not real in regards to certain things, but not when it comes to who I am and what my abilities are. When I was 13 I might have thought it would be cool if people thought I possessed some power that made me special, but I'm a grown-up now. I've got real shit going on in my life. I don't need to fake a quality to get people to like me. 

For that reason, if I do a trick where I'm claiming some super-powered memory, or some gambling ability, I always feel compelled to do so with my tongue in my cheek. And even if I'm doing a mentalism effect—depending on who I'm performing for, their beliefs, and how well they know me—I feel like I should give a wink to them to make it clear that I'm not actually hoping they believe what's going on.

But with a truly unbelievable premise, you don't have to concern yourself with any of that. You can play it completely straight, which is much more fun. You can be 100% serious as you sit next to them on the couch, let out a long sigh and say...

"Did I tell you I bought an invisible dog? What a mistake that was."

You have your friend sit on the floor with you. They select a card and you put it back in the deck. You tell them about this invisible dog you bought and how you thought he was going to be really helpful with some tricks, but he totally sucks. You call for the dog and hold out the deck. “C’mon, Brooksy. Come get the card, boy!” And you just sit there with the deck on your hand, nothing is happening. “He’s supposed to be able to smell the card with his 'great sense of smell,'" you say, mockingly, "and then nudge the deck with his nose so it separates at your card and he pulls it out with his teeth. At least that’s what I was told he could do when I bought him. That's what the previous owner showed me he could do. But he's been totally useless. This is going to sound crazy, but I think he sold me a different invisible dog than the one he originally showed me.” You hold the deck out and whistle. Nothing happens. You slam the deck off to the side, slightly behind you. “That useless piece of shit. I think I’m going to have him put down. He’s old. And frankly if he’s not going to help with my tricks, it's kind of pointless to have him around."

And as you shit-talk the dog, your friend sees the deck start to move, splitting into two packets, and then one card being pulled out of it, almost as if… well... maybe as if an invisible dog has found the card.

“I’ll probably just end up beating him to death with a shovel. It’s just cheaper.” Finally you notice your friend noticing the cards. “Hey! He got it! Oh… who’s a good boy!” And you start petting a rambunctious invisible dog in your lap. You throw your head back and giggle like a fucking moron, as if the dog is licking your face. “Stop it! Stop it! Hahahahaha. Stop it, Brooksy!”

Yes, it's just Haunted by Paul Harris/Peter Eggink (and it could possibly done with other haunted deck effects).

I love using the haunted deck for something legitimately creepy. I think it's a great tool for doing something really scary, or really ridiculous as in this presentation. (The thing that's telling about most magicians is how—even with a trick that so easily lends itself to more interesting premises—it's still often kind of thrown away as a "watch what I can do" moment.)

I get it, I get it, I get it. You didn't start performing magic to make people consider ghosts or invisible dogs, you wanted them to consider your astonishing powers. I know.

But for some of you, this presentation will be a lot of fun. It has that emotional engagement factor, albeit in an unusual way. If you're enough of a jerk like me, you can actually almost feel the person you perform for rooting for the fake, invisible dog. 

I've found pretty much everyone (guys, girls, old, young) is able to play along with this sort of thing on some level. This isn't one of those long-form immersive tricks that you need to establish a ton of rapport with the person first. It's easy for them to catch-on that this is leading somewhere and they just need to go along with it. (Of course, if they're very familiar with you, they can get on board even quicker. I performed this for my friend Elena last weekend and I said, "Did I tell you I bought an invisible dog?" And without missing a beat she rubbed her chin and said in all seriousness, "Hmmm... I don't think so." As if maybe it had come up but just slipped her mind.)

I particularly like that the deck cuts itself behind me, while I'm unaware, ranting about nonsense. There aren't many tricks that play out with that stage picture.

I'm thinking of adding one more beat to the routine. A couple days later I'm going to nonchalantly stroll back and forth in front of their house with one of these until they spot me.

The Path to Emotional Engagement

Hey, I adore Sankey. The guy is probably the most prolific creator of practical, commercial magic in history (Sorry, ladies. Herstory.) But this is not a great example of emotional engagement. And the reason it's not is because there is no emotion involved in selecting one of 52 identical looking objects. 

In this post I wrote about the effects I performed in 2017 and said:

The tricks that stayed with people were the ones with an interactive, present-tense narrative that engaged them emotionally.

Performers who shy away from the idea of emotional engagement tend to view it as manipulative or overly-serious. They often assume it means dealing with genuine emotional issues directly in the presentation. That’s not what it means. It doesn’t mean doing Living and Dead tests or reading someone’s mind to name the person who first broke their heart. 

Attempting to engage people’s emotions by making your tricks about emotions or emotional things is like putting “Let’s Get It On” on your sex mix playlist. It’s corny, dude.

The idea of emotionally engaging magic is a complicated one. But don’t worry, I’m about to clear this shit all up for you, real easy like.

The first thing to understand is this: for something to be emotionally engaging, it does not have to be about their emotions. It just has to be relatable.

Magic has a relatability issue. Traditionally what the magician does is magical but meaningless, and he does it in a mysterious way that suggests he is almighty.

What he’s doing (linking rings, making balls vanish under cups, making bills go into lemons) is meaningless, and therefore unrelatable.

And how he’s doing it (with the snap of a finger and unknowable, god-like power) is also unrelatable. 

Both the "what" and the "how" are unrelatable. So magic itself seems unrelatable. And when people can’t relate to something, it’s hard for that to be emotionally engaging. So magic is pushed into the realm of juggling and plate-spinning. It’s more stunt than drama.

To change this, we need to make one of those elements (the what or the how) more relatable to create emotional engagement.

Historically, people have striven to better their magic by adjusting the what. “I’ll do something magical and meaningful in a mysterious, almighty way.” But that doesn’t work that great, because there aren’t a whole lot of meaningful magic tricks. If there were, we wouldn’t be linking rings, making balls vanish under cups, and making bills go into lemons.

Instead of trying to make the what relatable, it’s far easier to make the how (the manner you do it) relatable.

“I’ll do something magical and meaningless, but I'll do it in a human way.”

By “human” I mean that you’re not a god who is snapping his fingers. You’re someone who is learning, practicing, struggling and dealing with setbacks and successes. Now the how is relatable. They may not have ever learned magic, but as a general process they can still understand it. 

If I show you a Tenyo trick, and it’s a ball that penetrates into a sealed box, and I just do it with a snap, then there’s nothing for you to get invested in.

Instead, what if I pull the ball and box out of a padded envelope and set it up and nothing happens and I’m like, “Yup, that’s what I thought. [Sigh] I got ripped off on this thing. I paid $180 bucks for this because it’s supposed to be this classic trick but it doesn’t work at all. And the guy I bought it from on ebay won’t give me a refund because he swears its an original and not a fake and that it will just take some time for it to settle back into working order after the shipping. I’ve been trying it a couple of times a day for the past week but I haven’t had any luck.”

Well, you can relate to this, because you’ve wasted money or you’ve had a bad transaction online or you bought something that didn’t work. 

“Here’s what’s supposed to happen. I’m supposed to keep this box shut with rubber bands. Then cover it with a bandana like this. And place the ball on top.” Wait. “And what’s supposed to happen is that the ball will penetrate down into the-“ [CLUNK!]

Something happened! The shape of the ball is no longer visible underneath the cloth. I pull it away. The ball is in the sealed box. 

“Well… holy shit,” I say.

And look what happens… by making it not a trick that happens at the my whim, this amazing but meaningless moment (a ball going into a sealed box) now actually does have some meaning to it. The trick worked, it wasn’t a dud, it wasn’t a waste of money. The moment has weight beyond just the impossibility of it.

People don’t actually have to believe the narrative of the effect. They can understand it’s all fiction and still get caught up in it. A story doesn’t have to be true to engage the emotions. 

To summarize, the path to emotional engagement is this: First, recognize that emotional engagement is predicated on relatability. Second, instead of trying to make the "What" of the trick relatable, try to make the "How" of the trick relatable. Jacks turning into Aces is not going to be the sort of thing people are going to get emotionally invested in if it happens with the wave of your hand. But if you lay out a relatable path of how we got to the point where we are today with you about to change those jacks to aces, that can be the source of your emotional engagement.