The Magic "Magic Bucket List" List

/

In regards to this post, I had an email that asked if I had a use for the DFB app that didn't use the phrase "fist fuck" quite so often. I'm not sure why you would need such a thing. Perhaps if you were performing for a religious leader who was, like, super orthodox or something? Well, whatever, my absolute favorite use for the app is in the spring issue of X-Comm (available to supporters at all levels here). There it's used as a component of an effect that is as strong as anything you can do close-up.

But that presentation is a little involved, so it's not something I get a chance to do as much as i want. 

Here's something I do all the time. All it requires is your phone. No other gimmicks or props. Not even a pen and paper.

Let's say I'm getting coffee with someone named Katherine. Maybe we're old friends, maybe we just met. Regardless, the subject of magic as one of my interests comes up and she asks what sort of things I'm working on now. And I say...

"Actually, I've created something of a magic bucket list recently. I have about 100 tricks that I want to do before I die. I'm just working through the list randomly. Yesterday I figured out a way to change one dollar bills into 100s. I'm going to start on another trick soon. Hey, name a number between 1 and 100. That will be the next one I work on."

She says 65. I give her my phone and ask her to open the Notes app and look at my Magic Bucket List note. She opens that up and scrolls past things like, Vanish an Elephant, and Walk on Water, down to 65 where it says, Accurately predict the freely chosen number from 1-100 that Katherine names.

"Well, that wasn't that hard at all, actually," I say.

There it is. It's quick, it's easy, the self-referential nature of the whole thing is kind of funny. 

It's always ready to go in my phone. (The generic prediction there says: "Accurately predict the freely chosen number from 1-100 that someone names." So I can perform it completely impromptu. But if I know I'll perform it for a specific person, I'll change "someone" to their actual name.)

As a trick, I like this a lot. But what I truly love about it is the way it seamlessly sets you up for other performances.

Let's rewind...

"Actually, I've created something of a magic bucket list recently. I have about 100 tricks that I want to do before I die. I'm just working through the list randomly. Yesterday I figured out a way to change one dollar bills into 100s. I'm going to start on another trick soon. Hey, name a number between 1 and 100. That will be the next one I work on."

Here, of course, instead of talking about changing 1s to 100s, you can mention any other trick you may have on you. "I just learned how to make rubber bands penetrate each other." "I just learned how to penetrate a cigarette through a quarter." 

So now you've just done this really quick prediction effect. If the other person is really into it, then you have a perfect, natural transition to another trick. "Oh, let me show you that other thing I was working on... [blah, blah, blah]." And if they're not that into what you just showed them, you can drop the subject.

My "Magic Bucket List" doesn't actually have things on it like "vanish an elephant" or "walk on water." It's a list of 99 other tricks I can actually do. Not tricks I could do that very moment, but trick I conceivably could do with some prep time. 

So now think how this plays out... I meet with someone, we're talking, the subject of magic comes up. I show them the quick prediction trick with DFB. If they really like it, I show them the other trick I have ready to go that I hinted at when introducing The List. Let's say that one goes over really well too. Now I say, "I'm glad you like this stuff. Here... look through the list and pick the next one for me to work on for the next time we see each other." Maybe she picks levitate an object. I act a little concerned, "Eh... okay... that's going to be a hard one. But I'll try. It's not going to be like a car or a dog or something. It will be like a dollar or a raisin."

You see what I'm doing here, yes? I get to build up some low-level anticipation for this trick days or maybe weeks in advance. It's no longer just an arbitrary effect that last a few seconds and then I move on. It's a trick they asked for. Perhaps I give them updates along the way. I may send them a text: "Tried levitating a raisin. Not working. May try with a finger ring. More surface area." (As if that makes some sense.) Maybe I even have a meet-up where it doesn't quite work. Maybe the ring wobbles on the table, but it doesn't float. The next time we meet, it does work. So they get to see the trick done successfully, but they're also a party to the evolution of it. This type of thing is what I've written about before as the Smear Technique; giving your effects a greater context and blurring the lines of when your presentation begins or ends. 

The idea is you have this cohesive experience for someone that builds organically (and only progresses based on their enthusiasm for this sort of thing) rather than just disconnected moments. The app makes this very natural and easy to get into, but it's not absolutely necessary. You could do something similar with a written list or a little blank book you're filling out. You could explain that you've set yourself a challenge of mastering the "100 Classic Effects in Magic" or maybe you need to perfect them before getting entry into some secret society. Either way, having a magic  "bucket list" or "to-do list" or "challenge list," or however you want to frame it, is a nice over-arching narrative for the amateur magician and a way to contextualize everything you do so it's all connected

A Recap of Derek Delgaudio's Final In and Of Itself Performance

/

If you're not on Twitter, you may have missed me kindly recapping the final NYC show of In and Of Itself. When I perform a valuable service like this, I don't intend to limit it to one platform, so for those of you who don't follow me there—and who weren't at the show—here is what you missed.

One moment I forgot to write up was when he did a floating dollar bill trick. It really didn't seem up to the same level as most of the material I've seen him perform in the past. And at one point the thread broke and the dollar fell to the ground. At least, I thought that was what happened. But at that point Derek dropped his head and said—somewhat under his breath—"Oh, great Moloch, almighty King, chief of Satan's angels. I beseech ye, make the bill rise. In turn, I, your loyal servant, will make the soil red and saturated with the scrotal blood of a dozen boy scouts." And, wouldn't you know it, the bill started to rise again. 

Here I was, trying to figure out if he was using a loop or a thread reel, and it turns out he was using a blood sacrifice to the god Moloch from the scrotums of young boys! Well, he got me good with that one. 

The Jerx Pre-Order Protocol

/

There is another classic magic debacle unfolding at the moment. I'll briefly summarize it for you, but you can read more about it here and here. (At least for now you can, these types of threads have a tendency to vanish.)

About a year and a half ago, a magician named Dave Forrest, who runs a company called Full 52 productions, created a Kickstarter to sell a chop cup that looks like a dice cup (it's a actually a cups and balls set that includes a chop cup). A couple hundred magicians purchased it generating about $25,000 for Forrest. That's when shit went south.

There were numerous delays with manufacturers, missing shipments, a bout of "jet lag," "personal issues," and all of this amounted to a product that was supposed to ship in June of 2017 that still hasn't been shipped yet, and no one seems to know if and when it will.

The strangest (and dumbest) cause for the delay was a fiasco regarding a close-up mat. You see, if you're going to do a chop cup routine with dice, you need to do so on a soft surface. Otherwise you have the situation: "I'm just going to set down this empty cup. [CLICK-CLACK CLACKETY-CLACK!]" So Dave decided to include a 4-inch circle mat with this release.

And, apparently, wrangling this little circle of foam has made it impossible to get this thing out to the people who paid for it. 

Do you see why this is especially moronic? The whole purpose of having a chop cup made with a dice cup and dice was to make it seem like an "everyday object." That makes sense. And performing on a normal, full-sized close-up mat is somewhat logical, at least in a formal performance. The mat is sort of your stage, defining your performance area. But isn't it kind of idiotic to say, "Here are my normal dice, and my normal dice cup. Oh, and here is my little cup-sized mat to turn the cup over on. Perfectly normal little dice cup mat. The kind you would turn a dice cup over on at home." You're turning that "everyday object" into a precious little magic prop, and emphasizing the fact that this particular object needs to be set down on something soft. It's dumb. No one was going to use that mat anyway. It's a pretty weak excuse.

Now, let me say this. I like Dave Forrest's material. I've used a few tricks of his quite frequently in the past. He seems to be a likable enough guy, and I don't think he got into this planning on ripping anyone off. That's just not enough money to ruin one's reputation as a magic producer. I think he's probably got himself into a position a number of people in magic have. They collect money for a pre-order, then they have the money, and they spend the money. But the work isn't done. The money is gone, but the work remains. So then it feels to them like, "Shit... now I have all of this work to do... for nothing!?" 

And I don't doubt that he is dealing with personal issues too. But here's the thing: so is everybody else. That's what life is—a bunch of fucking personal issues. Do I have sympathy for anyone dealing with significant personal issues? Absolutely. But whatever is going on hasn't prevented him from conducting all other sorts of other business if my spam mail is to be believed:

Screen Shot 2018-08-19 at 5.46.47 PM.png

The problem with these sorts of situations in magic isn't a lack of sympathy. It's that magic has a history of letting this kind of behavior off the hook. You pre-order something that's supposed to come in a couple of months and you end up waiting years for it? Haha, oh well, that's magic, I guess.

Even in those threads linked above you can see how cucked some magicians are; implying that if you conduct business over Kickstarter, or you have personal issues, that actually it's not so bad if you default on your obligations and make shit up about the status of a project. 

But look, I'm not here to pile on Dave Forrest. As I said, I like Dave's work, and I would be happy to help him out here. Dave, you are doing a horrible job of communicating with the people who supported this project. Let me mediate. Your credibility is shot. Tell me what the situation is and I'll communicate it to people in a way that makes sense. People trust me because they know I don't give a shit about any of you, and I will give them the straight dope.  

Yes, I know, I know. It's "personal issues." Here's the thing, if you find out you have cancer and you're devastated because you can't afford the treatments because you just finished paying for the funeral services for your entire family because they were struck head-on by a drunk-driver... you still have to communicate to Burger King that you're not going to come in for your upcoming shift. That's part of being an employee. "Ah," you say, "but I'm self-employed." Nope. Not after you take someone's money with the promise of something in return. You're their employee until that's taken care of.

Dave won't take me up on my offer, sadly. Nobody ever does. I'm just the ding-dong with a magic blog. 

Look, I may be a knucklehead, but—while I don't do traditional "pre-orders"—people do pay me money in part for something they won't be receiving until many months in the future. I'm not here to lecture anyone, but I'm in my third year of doing this, perhaps more successfully than anyone in the history of magic. So, for Dave or anyone else interested in doing a kickstarter or a pre-sale or something along those lines, here are the rules you should follow when conducting any type of pre-order.

The Jerx Pre-Order Protocol

1. Provide customers with a general UNambitious release date. If you think you can get it done in 9 months, then tell them, "It's going to be ready in about a year." No one will be mad if they get their product sooner.

2. Give regularly scheduled updates on where production stands.

3. If you're not going to meet your deadline, then the moment you realize this, you make a public announcement in regards to why not and you give people a new release date.  If your product is supposed to ship in June and you make an announcement on June 30th that there's a delay, that makes you an A-hole. Yes, magic is something of a "community" and we can be a little less rigid when holding people to release dates than you might be when dealing with Apple or some other big corporation. But this sort of goodwill is a two-way street. You don't get to take advantage of it on the one hand and then mislead people and not be forthcoming on your end. 

If you embrace these rules, the pre-order system can be pain-free for everyone. That's not to say it will be hiccup-free—there will be delays and unforeseen issues—but those are absorbed by both sides being candid and considerate with each other. If you're honest, and people can tell your intentions are good, it will feel like you're on the same side when dealing with any outside issues that may arise. If, on the other hand, you act sketchy and uncommunicative, don't be surprised when the relationship between producer and supporter becomes adversarial. You chose to make it that way.

Remote Cubetrol

/

I swear guys, this is the last Rubik's Cube idea I'll be posting here for the foreseeable futures (well...as far as I know). 

I wanted to introduce the concept of The Artist Distracted in last Wednesday's post because that is the manner in which I've been performing this trick, although you could do it with a more traditional presentation too. 

The idea started because I was getting into some cube magic and I wanted to re-learn how to solve the cube. This is something I learned a few years ago, but it's the sort of thing where if you don't practice the algorithms now and again, you'll forget about 65% of it. (And a 35% solved cube is less than impressive.) This is the method I use to solve the cube. It's pretty basic and not overly quick, but I can usually solve a cube with it in 60-90 seconds, depending on if I get lucky with the layout.

So, when I have something like this that I'm trying to learn/re-learn/keep fresh in my mind, I usually try and tie it to something else I will naturally do regularly in my life, so whenever I do the one thing I'll do the other. In this case, since I go to a cafe most days of the week, I decided to make it a habit of solving the cube before I took my first sip of coffee and cracked open my laptop. 

One thing I wasn't anticipating was that people stare at someone who solves a Rubik's Cube in public. I would consistently see two people in conversation and one of them would be looking over the other person's shoulder and concentrating on me, seeing if I was going to figure this dumb thing out. I'm not someone who crave's attention from strangers. It doesn't make me uncomfortable, it's just not my thing. The only thing that did make me uncomfortable was the idea that maybe they thought I was solving a Rubik's Cube publicly because I wanted their attention.

But while it wasn't something I sought, I did realize the potential value of an activity that drew people's eyes in public. Thats's the perfect sort of thing for an Artist Distracted style of trick.

So here's what I started doing. 

Screen Shot 2018-08-18 at 4.28.37 PM.jpg

I would get my food and drink and sit myself down at a somewhat central location in the cafe or lounge seating area. 

I'd pull out the cube and start "solving" it, and as I was doing this I would keep an eye out for whoever's attention was grabbed by this activity. Once I had identified a primary target, I would sort of cheat myself in their direction so they would get the best view of what was about to happen.

After 90 seconds or so of mixing up the cube (and seemingly making no progress) I would sigh loudly, or maybe mutter something under my breath. The next moment is the important moment and I need to make sure I have the target's attention. So, with broad movements, I would take off my hat and put the mixed up cube underneath it (or I'd put it under a napkin, or in a little bag the baked goods come in). And I'd centralize that on the table in front of me.

Then I'd reach into my bag and pull out an all white cube. I'd start mixing up this all white cube as if I'm solving it. At one point I may take a peek under the hat or the napkin. I do a few more twists and turns with the white cube, set it down, then pull the hat away, and now that cube is solved.

Here's a compressed version of the effect...

IMG_5645.GIF

 

What am I implying here? Well, just that moving the white cube has somehow solved the real cube. But beyond that, I don't know. That's what makes it perfect for an Artist Distracted presentation. I don't need to justify anything because I didn't ask them to watch, they're the one spying on me.

So maybe they see it as a trick. Or they may see it as some electronic gizmo that somehow solves the cube by proxy. Or maybe there's some connection between the cubes on some level they can't imagine. I think more often than not they just don't know what to think.

The method is, of course, just a one-handed solve. The one I use is from Takamiz Usui's Penguin Live lecture. 

I've performed this seven times now.

Twice it didn't hit. Either I didn't have their full attention when I placed the mixed up cube under the hat, or their attention was drawn away at some point so they didn't follow it completely, or whatever. This is one of the "drawbacks" of the Distracted Artist/Artist Distracted style. But I honestly don't mind it. I think it's funny when I go through the effort to do something like this and no one notices. 

Of the five time it hit:

Twice the reaction was identical. I heard the target spectator say in a weak voice, "What...the...fuck?" 

Twice the target spectator came over to me almost immediately and asked what they just saw. 

One other person grabbed my arm as I was on my way out and asked me what happened.

Of the three people who confronted me, once I sort of let on that it was a trick, and twice I just kind of played dumb. "What happened? Oh yeah. I don't know how it works. My friend gave this to me. [I give them the white cube to examine and slide the other one over to them too, so they can see they're just normal.] I just kind of imagine I'm solving this cube and it solves the other one. I'm not sure how it's all connected." They were coming to me for some clarity about what happened, and I wanted to make them leave feeling more bewildered.

One time it hit with my target spectator and three others who were watching. In this performance I had my headphones on and was bopping a little like I was listening to something but really I was just paying attention to their reactions. Out of my peripheral vision I could see them looking at each other (they weren't with each other) and pointing and mouthing words. It was almost a comic level of confusion on their part. I wanted them to share the moment so I packed up my stuff and grabbed my iced coffee and went outside. I saw a couple of them huddled together through the window afterwards. I would have loved to have a recording of their theorizing.

Of course you could do this with a straightforward presentation as well, in the context of a normal presentation. "Here is a mixed up Rubik's cube. I place it in this bag. Please examine this all-white cube. [blah, blah, blah] Now when I 'solve' this white cube, it magically solves the other cube." (I hope it goes without saying that's the essence of the presentation, not an actual script.) Then you could end with a dumb joke and say, "It actually works the other way too." Put the white cube under the hat, jumble up the normal cube, remove the white cube and be like, "See?"

Gardyloo #70 - Book Two Update

/

Things are hot and heavy with book number two now. The list of tricks is being finalized, illustrations are coming in, some little props that will accompany the book are being produced. Everything is on schedule. 

As we're a little past the middle of Season 3, I thought I'd give you an update on the progress of the rewards. I always want to keep you in the loop on this stuff because as far as I'm concerned that is part of the deal in any situation where you're paying up front for a product that won't be ready for some time.

Let me start with the stuff I like to think about the least.

The Ugly

If you want to support this site and my work, there is only one way to do so, and that is through this site. No legitimate copies of my work are available elsewhere.

Yes, people are going to bootleg my shit and no there's not much I can do about it. I don't talk about it here because it's fucking depressing. In my utopia, the fact that I put out so much content for free would cause people to say, "Oh, he puts a ton of time into this and gives it away for free, I'm not going to also try and screw him out of his paid work too," although that's probably naive on my part.

But I've decided not to concentrate on that aspect of things, because if I do, I'd just end up shutting the site down.

Instead I'm going to focus on the people who do support the site, because they're good people and not shit-heads and I'd like to share a milkshake with them, and I have long-term plans to keep them in the inner circle even when this site is gone. 

I do no advertising, I don't have an email list, and I don't annoy you on twitter. The existence of this site has (and always will) come down to how people respond to this soft sell:

If you like this site please consider supporting it to keep it going.

The focus of this site is too narrow for it to exist without the support of the people who are into what we're doing here.

The Bad

This is just a reminder, as I wrote in the initial Season 3 description:

You'll notice the Gotta Have It tier is actually less than $5/week (it's $240 instead of $260). That's because it doesn't include shipping. Instead, shipping will be paid by you when the book is ready to be shipped. This will be the best/easiest way for me to make sure I have your most up-to-date address and it will make the actual mailing go faster and smoother on our end. I don't want it to come as a surprise to you when it's ready to be mailed out. You will be paying shipping once the book and deck are ready to be shipped. I don't know exactly how much it will be, but the total will be less than what JV1 cost shipped (which was $260 in the US and $286 outside the US).

I'm reminding you now because I don't want you to have forgotten this point and then be all bummed out when the book is ready to ship.

bulldog-squeezers-blue-deck-playing-cards.jpg

The Good

Ooooh... there's so much good!

I'm working on the back design for the Jerx Deck #2. There were a couple of ideas I was going with, inspired by some of my favorite decks from the past. But it looks like Deck #2 will be The Jerx Squishers based on the old Bulldog Squeezers deck, which is my favorite of the old-timey decks.

Diamond Jim Tyler has a good, short explanation for the back of the Bulldog Squeezers which clarifies some of the elements. 

The Jerx Squishers will have some goofy bullshit on the back too.

(I should mention, since I've received a number of requests in recent weeks for the original Jerx deck, that the only way to get the deck is to support the site during the year in which it's released. There are no reprints. There are no bricks or bonus decks to be sold. And any future Jerx Decks will be a completely different design.)

I'm really happy with how the essay that opens the book is coming together. One of the things that I find wildly annoying is when a magician says something like, "You can't just perform tricks for people... you need to create an experience." And then you watch them perform... and they're just fucking doing regular old tricks for people! 

The opening essay collects a lot of ideas from posts on this site, and seeing them all together and reformatted and updated will, I think, make it clear with concrete steps how you can accomplish this somewhat nebulous goal of "creating an experience." 

The final part of this essay involves taking a standard trick (the prediction of a two-digit number using a nail-writer) and breaking it down and adjusting every element of the method/presentation until you have something that is structurally the same but the effect and the experience are completely different. You'll see. It's a good one.

I don't like to get too deep into the details of the descriptions of the effects (because I think with my material that's where the value is) but how does this baby sound?

"A card is selected and a lucky number generated, which is used along with some spelling and dealing to produce the chosen card, plus the four Aces, and finally a royal flush!"

Sound good to you? Huh... really? Well, it's a description of a Harry Lorayne trick that I read on the Cafe.

There is nothing in the book that reads like that trick above. But the good news is, if that's your type of thing, there are mountains of tricks like that in the literature. So you are all set. 

The tricks in the book I've been having the most fun with recently are a full-deck matching effect (the presentation is what excites me), a three phase trick done with an infant child (this is kind of a sequel effect to The Baby Who Knows), a trick where you control someone's dream, and my most-performed effect over the past few months that is done with the movie Jaws (or any movie you like, but you'll be set up to do it with Jaws).

There's also a trick that uses the book itself as a prop that I can't wait to perform. My early versions of the trick with a prototype prop have received crazy reactions.

And in this book you will find what I believe to be the most fooling version of Card-to-Mouth ever. This is my friend Andrew's trick and he's allowing me to publish it in the book after it completely blew me away the first time he showed it to me. I've never been a big card-to-mouth guy. I've done the trick and some variations a few times over the years. It's a fun trick to do and gets surprised reactions, but when breaking it down with people afterwards their reaction was, "Well, I don't know how you did it, but you must have put the card in your mouth when I wasn't looking." Well... yeah. Andrew's version has two convincers that lead people away from this theory. A signed card goes into the deck, your hands never leave the deck and are in full view the whole time, your mouth is obviously empty. Then, in an instant, without your hands moving, the card is no longer in the deck and is now in your mouth. It can be performed 100% impromptu and buck-ass naked. 

In one sense the trick is a "magician fooler" because it uses a method I've never seen before in magic, but it's also the strongest version I've seen for laymen because it's made very clear that their card and your hands never leave their field of vision. I think you guys are going to have fun working on this one. The method is totally practical but also a little out there.

There's your book update. Thanks to everyone who has supported this site in Season 3. Your kindness, good taste, and generosity will be rewarded. 

The next book update will be in a few months when the book is sent to the printers.

The Artist Distracted

/

The Distracted Artist is a performance style for the amateur/social magicians that I first mentioned in the very early days of this site. It's a style of magic that happens outside the context of a performance. The name of the style comes from the idea that a drummer might tap out a beat on his hip while waiting for the subway, and an artist might doodle something on a paper-placemat in a restaurant while waiting for her mozzarella sticks—so wouldn't it be kind of interesting if you, as a magician, would casually and carelessly do magic tricks sometimes.

When a performance in this style really hits, it's incredibly bizarre to people. They assume magic is something that has to be done with intent. So if you borrow a quarter for the jukebox and, while you're talking with your friend, you "accidentally" make it disappear, and then you're like, "Ah, my bad. Sorry. I've been practicing this coin vanish for like a week and it's just, like, second nature now. Can I borrow another quarter?"  And then you take that quarter and pinch it really tightly and walk over and drop it in the jukebox... it's a very strong "what the F" moment for a spectator. You accidentally made a coin vanish and you can't get it back? What kind of magic trick is that? You can definitely do it in a way where they know you're joking. But you can also be so casual and low-key about it that it feels more real. 

The key to the Distracted Artist style is that there can be no moment in the interaction where there are any of the trappings of a performance. Anything you say related to "the moment" has to sound like an explanation, not a presentation. And you can't draw their attention to anything. It has to all be on the periphery. Because of this, there are times when "the moment" will be missed by your intended audience. That's okay. That's part of what makes this style fun.

There are a number of permutations of this style which I broke down in this post.

There's another performance concept that I lump in with the Distracted Artist because they are both non-performances, although this one is kind of the inverse of DA in a way. This is The Artist Distracted. 

The Distracted Artist = My art (magic) is happening on the periphery of my attention, while my main focus is taken up by engaging with you (the spectator).

The Artist Distracted = I am distracted by my art to the point that I'm not paying attention to you or anyone else around me.

With the Artist Distracted style, you're clearly doing something and your attention is focused on that thing to the point where you're not paying any attention to who might be watching you and seeing what you're doing. This makes it, I believe, the ideal way to perform for genuine strangers because there is no weird moment where you're asking someone you don't know to pay attention to you. They're choosing to do so.

The important thing about both is that they are non-performance styles. The idea of a non-performance is very disarming to people. There is a desperation and a neediness associated with magic in some people's eyes. The stereotype in pop-culture is often an incompetent, powerless idiot desperately craving real acclaim for bad demonstrations of a fake skill.

gob-trick (1).gif

A non-performance disrupts this idea because you're not asking for applause, acknowledgment or recognition. You're not asking for anything. The effect happens and you move on.

Let's take a look at The Artist Distracted in action.

Watch her reaction. It's very telling. He grabs the bubble and she starts to say, "Coooool" before she fully understands what happened. Then she realizes the bubble has transformed into a solid object and there's a little gasp and she looks at her partner. Then she gets that beautiful smile on her face and she says, "Magic."

Let's pause here. In a more traditional magic context, I think the reaction would be similar, but more muted (or at least more artificial). If he had introduced himself and said, "You know, when I was a kid, I used to think bubbles were the most magical thing in the world. And as an adult... I still do!" Or if he had turned to them after grabbing the bubble and said, "Thank you. My name is Johnny Bubble-O, The Bubble-Magician. Here's my card." If he had done something like that, I don't think you get such a purely joyous reaction. An unexpected "magical moment" is almost always going to get a stronger reaction than something that feels like a planned performance.

But let's go back to that gif. It's the last few frames that are the most interesting to me. This is where her reaction turns from joy to "What just happened?" It's a true look of bewildered surprise. That is the most profound reaction we see from her. And it only comes after the magician leaves. If he sticks around and says, "Thanks, I hope you liked my trick," I don't think we get that moment. The strongest thing he does presentationally is to walk away at the end.

There's a transactional element to a traditional magic performance. "I'll do something amazing and, in turn, you'll give me some recognition." This is certainly a pleasant enough arrangement, but I think it also releases the tension that is built up for a spectator by a good magic trick. It concludes the experience in a way. But if you just see something strange and no one is asking you for applause or acknowledgement, you have to live with that experience a bit longer. It works that way even if it's obviously a trick. But if you don't know the exact nature of what you just saw (maybe it was a trick, maybe it was some quirk of science/nature, maybe it was someone with a genuine "power," or maybe you imagined it) then that feeling you see expressed in the woman's face at the end of that gif can resonate even longer.

Gleaming the Cube

/

"Child pornographer," "mass shooter," "Winner of Power-Bottom USA's 'World's Most Gaping A-hole' Award".... Of all the labels I could have been given that would have ripped out the heart of my late father, perhaps the most shameful is what someone referred to me as in a recent email: "the best Rubik's cube trick creator." If that ends up being on my tombstone, I swear I will haunt every last fucking one of you. 

I thought the writer of that email was kidding when he said it, but then later in the week I got an email with a similar sentiment from friend of the site, W.B, who said he was a big Rubik's magic fan and I had "created [his] favorite tricks with the cube." How this happened, I'll never know. I'm not really a big fan of Rubik's magic. As an object to do magic with, it's a little arbitrary, in my opinion. Last year I wrote:

"Rubik's Cube magic has become very popular. But just a quick heads-up: Rubik's Cubes themselves aren't very popular. You may want to mention why you're busting out this dated object (as many people view it). Yes, people recognize what it is, but it's not exactly an "everyday" object. So a little justification wouldn't hurt. Or just an acknowledgement that this isn't something you see much these days. Again, we think it's sort of common because it's become common in magic, but to the general public you might as well be doing a trick with an Etch-A-Sketch, a Teddy Ruxpin, or Gay Related Immune Deficiency."

Hmmm... I've also come up with a Teddy Ruxpin trick since that time. I guess GRIDs is next on the table. ("I have as many T-cells as you, plus 1000, and enough left over etc., etc.")

But while I'm not a huge fan of this type of magic, I have put out a number of effects using the cube, and I thought I'd do a round-up of some of those effects (and mention some other ideas) for anyone who is into cube magic.

The Rubik's Cube Trick: This was before I thought I'd be doing other cube tricks, so I didn't come up with a clever name to differentiate it. I often think this is the trick I would do if I was on Penn and Teller's Fool Us (and I wanted to fool them, not necessarily do the most entertaining thing I could do). 

Imagine Penn joins me on stage and there's a table with a dozen different objects Penn can use to blindfold me in any way he chooses (to prove it's not a phony blindfold—and it's not, it's legit). Meanwhile Teller is at his seat in the audience and given a cube to sign and mix up as much as he wants. He passes off the cube to an audience member on either side of him who mixes up the cube some more, it's passed on, mixed up, passed on and mixed up until it reaches the last person in the row. There the cube is tossed up on stage and I solve it using my psychic powers, behind my back, genuinely blindfolded. (Why behind my back and blindfolded? Theater, my dear boy!)

That's how I would do it in that context. You'd need two secret assistants (one at each end of the row that Teller is closest to) with special skills. And also you could put a grain of sand under one sticker on the cube so you could figure out the cube's orientation by feel (rather than the way I had it done in the original which involved someone placing it in my hands in a specific way). Using something tactile would allow anyone to place the cube in your hands.

SOLOtion: This was my one-on-one version of Michael Murray's Solution effect. I wanted to do something similar to his effect but for just one person (and since his effect relies in part on dual reality, that was off the table).

The interesting thing is this, since I released this, I've heard from a handful of people that this is the version they use now whether they're performing one-on-one or not. 

The original Solution is interesting in that it's an effect that uses dual reality, but unlike most DR effects, the effect for the audience and for the target spectator are both very strong. 

The problem is, in any situation that I'm likely to perform, the spectator and the rest of the audience are likely to talk after the performance and there would be a difference between what they thought was going on. And while the trick doesn't completely unravel, it definitely becomes something less than what they thought it was. 

But what if you could keep all the same mystery without the DR? I think you can.

(In what follows I'm speaking to Solution owners only here, so it's not going to make sense to anyone else.) Normally, when you perform the Solution, you want the spectator do X, but you don't want them to do Y, but you want the audience to think the spectator is doing Y. That's where Michael's clever dual reality comes in. But imagine instead you say this:

"Okay, Laci, in a moment I'm going to hand you the cube and I'd like you to Do X behind your back. [Here you demonstrate X, and you demonstrate it for everyone, not just the spectator.] Whatever you do, don't Do Y, okay?"

You give them the cube and they take it behind their back to Do X. 

"And you just keep on Doing X behind your back while I talk here, but don't let anything I say get you to Do Y. No matter how much you might be tempted to Do Y, just keep doing X."

Here you say some cryptic things that might make sense if the person was Doing Y and not Doing X like you told them to. 

You peek behind their back. "Okay stop," you say.

Now you say. "Laci, you can't solve a Rubik's cube normally, correct?" She confirms. "And you certainly can't solve one behind your back without looking, yes?" She confirms. "And I haven't touched you or the cube since you put it behind your back, right?" She confirms. "And the whole time you had it there, you just Did X, yes?" She confirms. "And as far as you're concerned you didn't Do Y... not even a little bit, correct?" She confirms. 

"Okay then, well can you please show us the cube and explain how that happened."

And, of course, they come out with a solved cube.

Now, everyone in the audience gets at least the same effect as the target spectator in the original Solution. But everyone (including the target spectator) also kind of gets the other effect too. Because the implication is that by telling the person to "make sure you don't Do Y" and "there's no way I could make you Do Y," that perhaps you influenced them to actually Do Y in some manner to bring the trick to a successful conclusion. 

The effect for the audience is a little less straightforward than in Michael's original. But as M.B. wrote in his email to me (and as I've heard from others), "The effect on the audience seems to get reactions that are at least as strong. And I love not having to worry about the DR being exposed."

If this is wildly confusing, read the pdf for the SOLOtion which is in the post linked above. Take out the switch that's used in that trick (it's not necessarily needed), and picture the person doing it behind their back rather than under the table. It should make sense.

(In Recognition of) The Best Rubik's Card Trick: I love this trick. Here's a variation on it I did just this weekend for my friend Karen.

So, the trick ends, the two cubes match, and she sees the trophy says: "In Recognition of the World's Greatest Coincidence."

"Let's try one more thing," I say. I take the mixed up cube, put it in a bag, and give it to her and ask her to shake the bag for a few seconds. "That probably moved some things around a little bit," I say. Then I reach and remove the completely solved cube from the bag. (As I learned in Takamiz Usui's Penguin Live.)

"Holy shit!" I say. "That's the most impressive Rubik's cube solve I've ever seen!" The implication being that she somehow solved it in the course of shaking the bag.

"You deserve this," I say and hand her the trophy. 

Now the inscription on the trophy says,

Karen O.
First Place
Most Impressive
Rubik's Cube Solve

The method is you get the trophy place to make you the personalized trophy, then you get them to make an additional inscription plate that say "In Recognition of the World's Greatest Coincidence." Then you stick that plate over the one on the trophy with a repositionable glue or something with a bond that's not too permanent.

Once you reveal the first inscription you set the trophy aside and steal off the covering inscription plate as you do. (Easy to do, because they think the trick is over.) Then do the bag solve and give them the trophy to keep. (Trophies are pretty cheap $15-$20.)

✿✿✿

I have another little Rubik's effect I've been having a lot of fun with recently that I will write up next week, probably. It's a very simple idea but it's related to a performance style concept I want to write about on Wednesday. See you then.