Two Ways to Get Out of Traffic Tickets

[NOTE: The link to buy book number two will be taken down at 12:01 AM EST on Tuesday. So tonight, if you’re reading this on Monday.]

I’ll be honest, I don’t know if these two techniques I’m going to write about will actually get people in general out of traffic tickets. Combined, the two techniques have gotten me out of three tickets in 10 years (and most of that time I lived in NYC with no car). I’m not someone who drives like an asshole and then has this unbeatable method to get out of tickets, that’s not what I’m suggesting.

The times I’ve been pulled over it’s usually for speeding on relatively empty streets or for running red lights in the middle of the night. (I mean, I stop, I look to make sure there are no pedestrians or card, then I run through the red lights because I don’t feel like sitting around to allow non-existent traffic to pass through. I’ve got things to do.)

The Psychological Technique

Here’s how this works.

1 - I follow all the normal rules for when you get pulled over. I pull off to a safe place. Turn off my engine. Have my license and registration ready. Act polite. Essentially I don’t give them any reason to think I’m a prick.

2 - I admit guilt. I know they say never to do this, but this is part of my technique. What I do is I admit guilt and give them any somewhat rational reason for what I was doing. So I might say I was speeding because I wasn’t feeling well and wanted to get home as fast as possible. Or I might say I was speeding but I thought I was driving safely for the flow of traffic. Or I might say I ran the light because it seemed safer to drive on with no cars around than sit there at the intersection in the middle of the night. It really doesn’t matter what my rationale is, the important part is admitting guilt. Some people say cops have to give you a ticket if you admit guilt, but I know that can’t be true—at least not everywhere—because I’ve used this technique and gotten out of tickets in the past.

Why admit guilt? Well, here’s my theory. People like to be in a position to forgive someone or do someone a favor. If you don’t admit guilt, you can’t put the person in that position. If you say, “No way man. I never speed,” the officer is just going to trust their radar and know you’re lying. They can’t “forgive” you for your transgression because you’re not admitting to it.

3 - But that’s still probably not enough for them to let you go. So the next step is this: I restate my case, but then suggest it doesn’t matter anyway because I understand they have rules to follow. So I’ll say something like, “It just seemed safer to go through the intersection when it was obvious no one was around rather than sit here and potentially have a drunk driver t-bone me while I’m waiting. You know? You understand. I mean, I know it doesn’t make a difference. You have to do what they tell you to. It’s not your choice. I just wanted you to understand where I was coming from on a person-to-person basis.”

Here’s the thing, no one likes to feel powerless. Especially not cops. So I’m subverting the power dynamic here. Instead of having the situation be, “You’re the cop and you have the power and that’s why you’re giving me a ticket for breaking the law.” I’m reframing the situation as, “You’re a cop and you have to give me this ticket. I get it. You’re just following the rules. Go do what your masters tell you to do.” Obviously I don’t say those words, but that’s the idea behind what I’m saying.

So now, not giving me the ticket is a demonstration of their independence and power. It’s like, “Oh yeah? You think I’m just some mindless automaton following rules and not using my own judgment? I’ll show you. I’ll not give you a ticket. How do you like that?”

Will this work with you and the officers you encounter in your jurisdiction? I have no idea. I don’t know if it will work for me the next time I try it. But it’s worked twice in the past, and I’ll undoubtedly give it a shot in the future.

The Magic Technique

I’ve tried this once and I got out of that ticket. Yes, it’s a small sample size (some would say the smallest) but it’s still a 100% success rate.

Here’s what it looks like.

The cop pulls me over, walks up to the car and asks for my license and registration. I pull out a $100 bill and say, “Is this what you’re looking for officer?” and hold it out the window. She looks at me. I act all innocent. “What? That’s what you asked for, right?” And when she looks again the bill has transformed into my license.

“Are you okay?” I ask.

Method

When I stopped living in NYC full time and needed a car to travel, I had the idea for this trick and bought the gimmick it’s based on. It hung out in my car’s console for a couple of years until a few months ago when I finally got to use it.

The trick is Dollar to Credit Card 2.0 by Twister Magic.

You can make up the trick with any type of credit card (or in my case, an expired license) and a bill of any denomination.

Here’s how I do it. I offer the bill with it completely unfolded. Then I fold it half way and hold it out with two fingers. Then it depends on what the police officer does. If he/she looks at the bill or tries to take it, I do a visual change. If they look at me, I just do the change without them seeing, so it will just be a license when they look back.

Here’s what it looks like. This is using the credit card and single dollar bill the trick comes with. I’m not dumb enough to upload a video with my license information on it. (And, like most of the videos/gifs here, I didn’t record this myself.)

IMG_5791.GIF

Once the officer sees the license and I’ve casually shown it on both sides, I pull my hand back into the car and kind of lean out the window in a “huh? what’s the issue?” sort of way. While I do this I drop the gimmick down at my side. I then take my registration (with my actual license under it) in my right hand and put it into my left and put both out the window. So it looks like I had my license in my left hand, brought it inside the car, then added my registration on top of it and handed both back out.

Now, here’s the thing, I don’t think police officers like the idea of being confused or fooled on the job, even if it’s in a harmless/fun way. They’re on edge. So you want to clarify what’s going on immediately.

“Sorry. I’m a magician. I just always wanted to try that.”

Now they’re back on solid ground, and at this point it’s your chance to get out of the ticket.

When I did it, the officer was immediately interested. And why wouldn’t she be? She’s probably had a day full of dealing with angry or upset people, and here’s someone who added a moment of levity to her day and doesn’t seem pissed or anything. She asked me about being a magician and I showed her a couple other tricks with stuff I had on me and she let me go. I don’t even remember what she pulled me over for.

I don’t think it’s the magic trick itself that will get you out of a ticket, but it gives you the chance to interact with the officer and come off as a real human. And when you’re as delightful as I am, it’s hard to give such a person a ticket.

The Power of a Little Emotional Doubt

Book number two is finished and will be sent to the publisher next week. Barring something unforeseen, I should get it in time for delivery around the New Year. I’m pretty psyched about it. It’s 340ish pages, 28 tricks (16 of which have never appeared anywhere before), 50+ hand painted illustrations, three small additional props, and what I consider to be some of the only practical advice on how to turn tricks into memorable experiences for people.

I ended up asking over 100 friends and family about what were the effects they’ve seen me perform that left the most indelible impression in their memory. Some of these people have seen me perform magic for almost 30 years. From their responses I attempted to reverse-engineer the elements that make tricks strong and resonant, and the book is really a discussion of those elements and a look at them in practice.

For fans of this site, I think you’re going to love the book. It’s got the best tricks I’ve come up with over the past 18 months and the clearest distillation of some of the things I ramble about here.

I’m not trying to sell anyone on it. If you like this site, then you’ve probably already bought it. I’m just getting you hyped for it. I’m really happy with how it turned out.

One of my friends who did some proofreading on the book suggested I post an excerpt from it here because he felt it helped explain something that I sometimes struggle to make clear on this site.

Here is that excerpt, slightly redacted to remove the details of the trick it appears in. It’s enough to know that the trick involves engaging in an activity that leads to a series of coincidences with the spectator.

This is one of my favorite tricks to perform. It’s almost excessively casual. We’re hanging around on the couch or sitting on the floor, listening to music and talking. The hanging out is part of the presentation.  But at the same time we’re [REDACTED]. And surely this is all bullshit, right? That’s what my friends think, at least. They think that right up until coincidence #2 when [REDACTED]. Then I begin to sense the doubt. Oh sure, intellectually they know this must be a trick. They’re 90% sure. Hell, 95% sure, even. But then there’s that five percent that says maybe this is something else. It feels like something else. And you might say, “Five percent is not enough. I want them to really believe in the power of what I’m doing.”

You don’t need that. I’ll prove it to you. If intellectually you were very sure your spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend was faithful to you, but you were 5% unsure. And if that 5% percent was based on your emotions, not your intellect, that 5% would eat at you. Emotion trumps intellect. And 5% of something that feels real to you in the moment is more powerful than 95% of something you know intellectually.


I want to pursue this a little more because I think it clarifies something some people have found sort of contradictory. That being that I recommend putting a lot of effort into presentation, but I don’t recommend trying to get your audience to actually believe in the reality of your presentation.

Traditionally, I think amateur magicians have fallen into one of two group. The first group says, “Well, this is just meant to be a bit of fun. It’s entertainment. We’re all adults here. We know there’s no such thing as magic. Yes, having a good presentation is great, but I’m not going to put too much emphasis on something I don’t expect them to believe in.”

The second group says, “I want people to see me perform and to really believe they are seeing someone with some sort of genuine power. Therefore, I want my presentations to be impossible and amazing, but also believable to a certain extent.”

Both of those groups will look at this site and see a trick where I’m suggesting immersive presentations about traveling back in time, or hopping through dimensions, or dealing with an invisible dog, or interacting with your evil twin, and they both have the same response:

Why are you putting energy into a presentation they’re not going to believe anyway?

By that, group number one means: “Why are you making people seriously engage in an interaction that we all know is fantasy? Sure, go ahead and say you’re going to restore the card by traveling back in time. But just say you do that by snapping your fingers or something. You don’t actually have to go through some extended process to ‘time travel’ given that nobody is dumb enough to believe that’s what’s actually happening.”

Why are you putting energy into a presentation they’re not going to believe anyway?

And by this, group number two means, “If our goal is to be believed, why would we undermine that with a presentation no one is ever going to think is ‘real’?”

Most magicians fall into one of those two camps, and that’s why this site isn’t popular with most magicians.

But I think the answer to why it’s worth putting effort into an unbelievable presentation is in that excerpt above. You can still affect people with something unbelievable. You don’t need 100% intellectual belief, you just need a little emotion-based doubt.

Let’s say you and I were walking on the far outskirts of town, late at night. We come across a covered bridge that we need to cross.

Scary-Creepy-Bridges15.jpg

We stop before going in and I tell you a story about how there was this crazy inbred family nearby who used to get their kicks by hiding in the shadows and up in the rafters of the covered bridge and they would jump out and terrorize people passing through. At first it just seemed like it was some kind of sick game to them, but then people who set out in the direction of this bridge started going missing.

And I take 5 minutes and weave a story and when I’m done talking about the sick shit that happened on this bridge, there are two things that are true:

  1. You know I’m just making this all up. There is no inbred family killing the people who go through a covered bridge. That would have been on the news.

  2. You don’t want to cross that fucking bridge.

It doesn’t matter if you know it’s not true, you can still feel the fear.

Why do we tell scary stories around a campfire? Not to get people to intellectually believe them. Not to have them say, “Let’s go talk to the mayor and have him assign a special investigative unit to catch this guy with a hook for a hand!” We take the time to build up the story in order to put them in a mindset where an irrational fear can take hold despite what they know to be “real.”

Presenting magic in the immersive style is a similar concept, just coming from a more benevolent place. If we put in the energy to do so, we can take advantage of the fact that emotion trumps logic and use that to put people in a situation where they’re compelled to engage with the irrational. But instead of doing so in a way that makes people feel like they’re in a scary scenario, we do it in a way that makes them feel like they’re in a wondrous, mysterious, or enchanting one.

Gardyloo #79: Halloween Edition

Happy Halloween, my groovy ghoulies!

I’m going to murder you all.

vintage-halloween-decorations-1900.jpg

One of the most successful projects I’ve ever been involved with (somewhat tangentially) was a mixture of magic and horror. It was a piece of viral advertising for the Carrie remake in 2013. I still think it’s pretty brilliant. There’s a great buildup to the way the effects all unfold.


I’ve done a lot of creepy/spooky tricks in the past, but I think there was only one time when I truly terrified someone with a magic trick.

I was with two friends of mine who are married and I mentioned that I was learning a technique to control pulses. Not my pulse. Other peoples. So I had my friend take her husbands pulse as I attempted to speed it up and slow it down through some gestures and intense concentration.

It wasn’t working.

Her husband started giving me shit and he was being relentless about it. I couldn’t take it anymore, so I gave him one of these gestures…

IMG_5788.GIF

And his pulse stopped and he slumped over in his chair.

His wife thought we were playing around but then she realized his pulse was really gone, and she started screaming at me to “fix him.”

Yes, it was the old pulse stop trick, just done with a stooge.

This, by the way, is why I always recommend magicians get involved with their local theater group in some capacity. You will find a bunch of people who will be more than happy to assist you with any crazy idea you want to do. Yeah, actors can be insufferable to be around. But more often than not they’re just fun, outgoing people who are happy to play along with all sorts of nonsense.


If you’re into horror movies at all, Eli Roth’s History of Horror on the AMC channel is a really great show.

It’s a seven part series and they’ve aired four so far (they’re available on demand).

They have interviews with almost everyone you would hope to hear from. It’s amazing. I’ve watched a bunch of horror documentaries over the years, but never one with so much access to all the big names in the industry.

There is some level of horseshit when they try to read too much into these movies. One dope said about a movie that featured a possessed female, “The horror genre is the only one that will address this truth: Society is terrified of women.” Or something like that. It was moronic because she seems to have forgotten all the horror films where men are the monsters.

But other than that sort of thing, it’s a great series.


One of my favorite people and Jerx resident artist, Stasia Burrington has a new project she’s working on that I want to inform you about. It’s a Deck of Many Things which is some sort of D&D nerd thing that I don’t know anything about because I’m sorry but I’m not into WITCHCRAFT. I guess I didn’t think it was “rad” and “dope” to turn my back on Jesus and celebrate the occult.

No, I’m kidding. Although as it is Halloween, I hope some of you will be disappointing some kids by handing out the Dark Dragons Chick Tract instead of candy.

I won’t be picking up the deck to use in any D&D games, but I know I’ll get some use from it regardless. As it says on the kickstarter page, the deck can also be use as:

  • An alternate mini-tarot tradition deck

  • A storytelling device

  • A roleplaying game character generator

  • A random number generator

For me, I will definitely find some uses for it in a magic context. I’m a big fan of using various types of cards as a small way of helping to differentiate performances. And I just find it easier to capture people’s interest initially with a deck that doesn’t look like anything they’ve seen before.

Here is the Kickstarter page where you can support the project.


One of my favorite Halloween traditions is watching this video that some friends of mine were partially responsible for. it’s got one of the dumbest premises: The Monster Mash that we know and love (?) is actually the result of the record company re-writing and toning down a graphic song about monsters having sex.

Catching Up On Some Stuff

If you want to guarantee yourself a copy of the next Jerx book, Magic For Young Lovers, this is the last week to order. I’m only having printed as many as I’ve sold.

There will likely be some available as “overage” printed by the publisher, but I can’t guarantee that. Of any overage that is printed, half will be made available for sale and the other half will be packaged up with the rest of the items in my back catalog for the occasional person who comes late to this site and wants to get everything.

Don’t feel any obligation to buy the book if you’re not really inclined to. The more limited it is, the better, in my opinion. But at the same time, I want to make sure everyone who does want a copy has the opportunity to get one. So if you want it and you haven’t ordered it yet, now is the time to do so. You can purchase the book, which comes with the second Jerx Deck, 4 issues of the X-Comm newsletter, and the Jerx app (if you don’t already have it) here.


A small update to the Jerx App should be appearing in the app store in the next week or so.. A number of people have requested the ability to store multiple drawings in the app for the drawing swap section, so they don’t have to make a new drawing each time they want to perform a different tricks. That functionality will be in this update.


I don’t look at the analytics for this site very often, so I didn’t notice that about a month ago the RSS subscribers for the site fell overnight by like 90%. I’m not sure what caused it. I may look into it if I get a chance, but regardless, if you did subscribe via RSS you may need to redo it.


In regards to last Wednesday’s post, I got an email that said, “I understand what you’re saying about presentations that are more ‘immersive’ in nature, but I think you underestimate how many people just want to sit back and watch a magic trick.”

Well, I don’t disagree that many people would enjoy that, but I think it’s a rare person who would prefer that to something that felt more interactive, in a social situation. Similarly, I think people enjoy hearing jokes, but they would rather have a funny conversation. People like watching the Food Network, but they’d rather eat a great meal. People enjoy jacking off to YouPorn, but they’d rather fuck. (Maybe not magicians, but normal people, I mean.)

As the possibility of someone having real magic powers has faded, magic has become about the interaction between performer and audience. Take a look at the magic tv shows that have gained traction in the past 20 years, they are all about the magician and the people watching the magic. It’s about Blaine performing for the wealthy and also the downtrodden; it’s Carbonaro peforming for people who aren’t even aware they’re seeing a performance; it’s the magicians on Fool Us performing for Penn and Teller; it Justin Willman performing for people in casual settings, it’s the Got Talent magicians performing for the judges; it’s Criss Angel performing for stooges and bad actors.

Will we ever see another Copperfield or Henning type of special where they’re performing out towards an amorphous “audience”? I kind of doubt it. The next magician who really makes a name for him/herself probably isn’t going to do so because their tricks are so impressive, but because they’ve found a new type of audience to perform for.

This is why I think the idea of just sitting back and observing magic is a concept that is well on its way out. The interaction is what people are drawn to these days. And in a social situation, the interaction they want is one which includes them.


Congratulations to Steve Brooks on the 12 year anniversary of his most recent post on “My Side Of The Screen,” his special section on The Magic Cafe dedicated to his “Thoughts and views on magic, the internet and anything else that’s on [his] mind.”

Screen Shot 2018-10-29 at 2.19.48 AM.png
Screen Shot 2018-10-29 at 2.45.37 AM.png

Wait… hold on…this might not be the cause for celebration I thought it was. Now that I think of it, 12 years is kind of a long time to go without having a thought. And certainly no sane person would set up a special section on a website if he only had six ideas for posts chambered, right?

Has anyone checked on Steve recently? Like, say, within the past 12 years?

Just a minute… I hacked into his webcam many years ago. Let me see if I can time-lapse the footage between then and now.

IMG_5785.GIF

Aw crud. That’s not good. Steve’s dead everyone. RIP you glorious son of a bitch.

Gardyloo #78

Once early December rolls around, I hope you will take a moment and remember the “day that will live in infamy.” No, I’m not talking about Pearl Harbor. I’m talking about another senseless tragedy.

brookslecture.jpg

That’s right, you can stop your clamoring, your prayers have been answered. Our old pal, Brooksy, is having a magic lecture.

Here is the facebook event post.

I know you’re thinking, Oh, what’s your angle here, Andy? Are you going to say Steve won’t be teaching his Bill in Lemon trick because he keeps eating the lemon?

How dare you. I’d never say that.

Were you going to say that this line from the ad:

WARNING: Due to the hands on nature of this workshop seating will be limited to the first 20 PAID reservations.

Should really say this:

WARNING: Due to the hands on nature of this workshop bring a deck of cards that you don’t mind getting chicken grease on.

No! Knock it off. I won’t tolerate such disrespect.

All I want to say is that I hope Steve’s lecture/workshop goes well. And if there are any Jerx supporters in the area of Haines House of Cards (Norwood, OH) who would like to go, I will reimburse you the cost of your ticket. You just have to send me a pic or some other proof you went. I’m completely serious. I want to pack the place for Steve.


We got some big news from our brothers at Vanishing Inc. this week.

Screen Shot 2018-10-25 at 3.11.55 PM.png

I was hoping we would finally get the news we all know is coming, that Josh is carrying Andi’s baby. Sadly, that wasn’t the big announcement. This was:

“Effective immediately, Joshua Jay and Andi Gladwin (on behalf of Vanishing Inc) are pleased to announce the purchase of Art of Magic and all its content from Dan and Dave Buck.”

Okay, that’s a little less #exciting than I had hoped, but whatever. They’re two quality organizations and I think they’ll mesh well together. It’s a good acquisition for them.

Speaking of…, if Vanishing Inc. or anyone else is interested, The Jerx is also for sale. $84 OBO.


In the fall issue of the X-Comm newsletter, I mentioned Michael Weber’s Charge Card effect and its use with Marc Kerstein’s ChargeMe app.

Well, Marc informs me that ChargeMe is no longer available in the app store because Apple didn’t like an app that mimicked the battery charging aspect of the iPhone. So if you were going to get the Charge Card to use with this app, then don’t.

Marc may try and come up with some workaround for the app that Apple will approve of, or we may bury it somewhere in the Jerx app. I’ll keep you updated if either of those things come to pass.


In response to Monday’s Witch’s House post, reader Daniel Lee suggested doing a version of the Trapdoor Card with a Stranger Things style of presentation. So one side of the page would have a relatively normal, colorful drawing, and the other would have some ominous image in black and grey representing the “Upside Down.”

I think it’s a good idea when presenting the effect to someone who is familiar with the show. I haven’t done it myself, and I don’t see myself saying, “Here’s a trick about Stranger Things!” But I might perform it and approach it more obliquely. “Have you seen Stranger Things? My girlfriend’s sister teaches elementary school and apparently they have a kid who acts out in the same way as the kid on that show. Like he freezes up and when he snaps out of it he implies he’s seen some other plane of existence. But not in those words. At first I thought she was saying that he’s imitating the kid on the show, but then she told me it was something he did before the show even aired. She gave me this picture he drew….”

I would probably experiment with not showing the other side of the paper first. That way, when the other side is revealed, their first instinct will be, “Oh, well you just turned it around or something.” Then it will dawn on them that I couldn’t have just turned it around since they were holding it the whole time. 


More Friends of the Jerx with some notable accomplishments in the sphere of magic for the general public’s consumption…

First, famously non-pregnant magician, Joshua Jay, is going to be on the Tonight Show tonight, October 26th. Set your DVRs. Or, if you don’t have anything better to do, watch it live.

But here’s the thing, if your life is at the point where you feel you don’t have anything better to do than stay home and watch Joshua Jay on the Tonight Show on a Friday night, then you actually do have something better to do. It’s called suicide.

✿✿✿

Last week I mentioned Justin Flom’s new book for kids who are interested in magic. At the other end of the age spectrum, we have Allan Kronzek’s new book, Grandpa Magic. This is a book for people who want to use magic to entertain their grandchildren. What a good idea. I read the preview on Amazon. It looks like it will be a pretty fun read.

61LcetUtCML._SX450_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

If nothing else, the cover and illustrations are so much more pleasant than Allan’s previous magic book for the public.

51VGR2CVsEL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Who is the monster that designed this hideous book cover for young magicians? Has he never met a kid? Or does he just hate them?

Dover always had the bleakest covers. If you saw this book from across the room and couldn’t read the title you’d say, “What’s that? A book on what to do with your loved one’s possessions after watching them die from gallbladder cancer?” No, no. This is a book about magic aimed at young people.

How does Dover choose the color palette for their magic books? Do they just mix a giant vat of shit and vomit together until they capture the color of chronic depression?


Chris Grace in an actor and comedian who I haven’t met before, but I have seen him do improv in NYC a few years ago, as we have a couple of friends in common. He stumbled on this site recently and I’m glad he did because he makes me laugh. He sent along the video below which has him re-dubbing the demo for Cameron Francis’ trick, Captivated. As I mentioned on Wednesday, I hate the brand of patter Cameron uses in that trick. Here Chris ratchets the stupidity of that type of patter up profoundly and it’s actually much more entertaining, in my opinion.


My friend Stasia, who is the illustrator on the forthcoming book (as well as JV1), has been doing “Inktober” on her Instagram. This is a drawing challenge where people draw one ink picture per day in the month of October based on some prompt words. Here are some of my favorites…


The Nearness of You

This is something I’ve written about before in other posts, but I wanted to devote a post specifically to the subject because it’s something I see frequently. It’s a type of bad patter that I people use all the time. The following example comes from a new release by Cameron Francis called, Captivated.

“So I was having a chat with a magician friend of mine the other day. And I said, ‘You know what, I want do an effect that really captures my audience’s attention. Using just 8 cards: the four aces and the four kings.’”

And then he goes on to tell the story of a past performance of the trick to accompany himself performing that trick in the present.

Now, to be fair, most patter in online demos delivered to the camera is bad. It’s not really conducive to something more interesting. And I have no idea how Cameron would actually present this in real life. For a youtube demo, this patter is fine. But I have seen people perform almost identical patter to real humans in real life, and in that context it’s terrible.

✿✿✿

One of the best things about close-up magic is the immediacy of it. It’s something that’s happening “in this place” and “at this moment.” Only magicians would think to screw this up by distancing the spectator from the effect. “Here’s something that once happened with me and some other guy I know.”

Here’s the thing, if you don’t think, “This ace will turn over. And now so will this one. And now they’ll turn to kings,” is an interesting enough thing to talk about in the present tense, then it’s certainly not interesting enough to tell a story about.

I know why people do it. It’s a defensive approach to showing magic. Instead of confidently suggesting you have something interesting to show them, you couch it in the presentation of “this thing that happened to you.” Sometimes it’s even further removed than that. Sometimes it’s, “this thing that happened to another guy once.”

  • “While he wasn’t looking I shuffled his deck face up into face down.”

  • “I was certain I put the card in the middle of the deck, but the next time I looked, it was back on top.”

  • “One time a gambler bet a magician a million dollars he couldn’t cut to four of a kind.”

✿✿✿

The close cousin to the “here’s something that happened once,” style of patter is the, “magic trick as analogy” patter. This is where you tell a story and the coins or the cards represent something else. This is another case where you’re making it not about the present moment.

I’m speaking to the social/amateur magician here. Maybe Eugene Burger could get away with telling the Hindu creation story alongside his performance of Gypsy Thread, but in the real world when performing for friends, acquaintances, and family it’s a very alienating thing to do. Are you someone who would normally tell the Hindu creation story? Probably not. So it only comes off as a justification to show the trick. Which again suggests that the trick itself isn’t worth their time on its own.

✿✿✿

In social magic, the presentation should ultimately be about the two (or more) of us in the room and the magic that is happening in that moment. It may sound like I’m advocating for breaking down the fourth wall in your presentations. I’m not. In social magic there is no fourth wall. Social magic is an interaction, not a show.

✿✿✿

If you’re a social magician and you want to perform a trick like the one Cameron performs above (a longer, multi-phase card trick) then you would likely only show it to someone who likes you and who likes these sorts of tricks. (This is not the sort of thing you would spring on someone as a first trick when you meet them.) So if that’s true—if they like you and they like card tricks—then the only baseline patter you need is: “Hey, I’ve been working on something and I want to get your thoughts on it.” This Peek Backstage style is not only good because it’s simple and “honest.” It’s good because it focuses the magic on this present moment. “I want your feedback on this thing I’m showing you now,” is a normal human interaction that concentrates their attention on what’s happening now.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t strive for a presentation that is more compelling and interesting than that. I’m just saying that default presentation is good enough and it doesn’t make sense to replace it with something worse. Add a good story or add no story. And if you add a story it should be one that leads up and into the present moment. Not something like, “So this one time a guy took a card and it turned into another card and blah, blah, blah…”

Don’t add a dull story just so you can check the “presentation” box.

✿✿✿

Here are some examples of other generic, present-tense presentations:

“Here’s this weird thing that happened to me once… and here’s how it affects me to this day.”

“There’s this old ritual I read about… let’s see if it works now.”

‘I found this strange object… let’s see what it does.”

‘I read about this psychological game… and I’ve been waiting to meet up with you so we could test it out.’

You see how each of these—even if there is a backstory to it—all play out in the present moment. The benefit of this is that it can seem like neither of us know for certain what’s going to happen next. And that should make for a more exciting effect, more-so than me just relating a story.

✿✿✿

Ultimately this comes down to the professional/amateur divide. As a professional, it makes perfect sense that you would tell stories and illustrate them with magic. A professional magic show is not designed to feel like a normal human exchange. So heightening the theatricality is an understandable choice when performing a “show.”

The thing to understand about social magic is that' it’s not just an informal close-up show in a coffee shop. It’s designed to happen within an interaction. That’s its strength. And it’s the reason why a spectator can’t experience social magic while watching a video of it, because they’re removed from that incident. If your goal is to do an informal show in a coffee-shop, that’s fine, and you can just follow the precepts established for the professional magician. But if your goal is to create the unique experience of social magic, then any choice you make in presentation that takes away from the immediacy of the performance is a bad one.

The Witch's House

Are you familiar with this trick The Trapdoor Card by Robert Neale? I think it’s one of Neale’s more famous creations. Here is a variation done with a dollar bill. And here are a bunch of different variations with cards and other stuff as performed by the world’s greatest grandpa.

Over the years, I’ve done the variation with a bill (Wonderland Dollar) which doesn’t require the spectator to close their eyes, and I’ve done it with a playing card as well. I never really got it to feel like much more than a puzzle, but for the people I knew who liked puzzles, it could be an interesting thing to show them. In all, it was an effect I liked, but didn’t love.

Then, right around the beginning of 2018, I got an email from Nico Ruiz about a trick he does with his 6-year old daughter, Kala.

Here is part of his email:

As I told you, the trick is done by my daughter. She tells the story of a little witch who lived in the forest away from the village, but when she left, some lumberjacks from the village went into her house to eat and steal her precious sweets, so she made a curse: Everyone who entered her house in her absence would automatically find themselves outside, by magic. So she shows a drawing of her house and asks the spectator to hold the door of the house on the inside, hold it very tightly. And depending on the moment, she covers the drawing with a handkerchief or asks them to close their eyes, and instantly the spectator is holding the door on the outside. The truth is that she has a lot of fun doing this trick dressed in her witch hat.

Here’s the little witch herself.

Untitled 3.jpg

When I got the email I thought, “Oh, that’s cute.” But I didn’t really put that much thought into it.

A few weeks ago I decided this might be something fun to try for myself. I’d scribble a little picture and throw it in my wallet. Then I could tell people about this story my niece made up about a witch and a house and some lumberjacks and a curse. And then I’d pull the picture out and say she drew it the other day and she says it’s the house from the story.

“I didn’t think the picture was very good. And I was going to tell her to work on a few more revisions to have her get it to the point where it lived up to my high standards. But then I found something interesting about this drawing that made up for the poor artistic skills.”

“So, the way my niece told the story was, the lumberjacks would enter the house, then their eyes would get heavy and close, and when they opened them, they’d find they were on the outside of the house.”

“Here’s the weird thing about this drawing. Right now you’re on the inside of the house. Take a hold of the door with your hand. Now there’s no way for me to turn the paper, and the only way for you to get to the outside of the house, without letting go, would be if you somehow went through this door.”

“Don’t let go, not even for a second. Now let your eyes grow heavy and close, like the lumberjacks in the story. Now open them… and look… somehow you’re on the outside of the house.”

And I performed it like that for a few people and their reactions were much more in line with seeing something magical, rather than just seeing something puzzling.

I think there are two reasons for this.

First, a child’s drawing is something that has some emotional weight to it. Much more-so than a card or a bill. And the idea that maybe a child drew something that has some strange property is inherently more interesting than, “I’m going to fold a playing card and you’ll go from looking at the front to looking at the back.”

Second, there is a very straightforward clarity to the effect with this version. You’re inside the house, then you’re outside the house. The hole in the middle represents a doorway in the picture, emphasizing that this is a door, not just a flap in a bill or card. This strengthens the idea that the only way to get to the other side is to go through the door. When it’s just a flap, that symbolism is lost.

In Neale’s version, the flap is also a picture of a door, but his story that went along with it was too abstract for me. He talks about how in every town there is a white wall with a green door and if you go through the door you’re in a garden and when you come back out your spirit is renewed. What does that mean? I don’t know. I’m not sure any spectator would know either.

Even though it’s just a cosmetic change, I think the simplicity of “inside and outside” really helps cement the effect in the spectators mind. “There was a picture of the inside of a house on one side of a piece of paper and the outside of the house on the other and a little cut-out door in the middle. I was standing on the “inside” side of the paper, holding the door. Then I closed my eyes, and when I opened them, I was now on the “outside” side of the paper even though I had never let go.” That sounds like a magic trick, not just a puzzle.

The story that goes along with it is so simple that literally a 6-year old can tell it and understand it. And it helps reinforce where you start and end up. You’re in the witch’s house and then she kicks you out. Simple. As Neale has said, the most important thing is for people to really understand what side they start on. This version makes it 100% clear.

Some final thoughts:

- The trick isn’t mine to teach. You can see Robert Neale teaching it in the Celebration of Sides download here. I don’t do the push-through action he does in that download, I do more of a folding action, like in the clips in the first paragraph. Because I keep the drawing folded and in my wallet, I can fold right along the creases already established in the drawing. I fold it and unfold it when their eyes are closed. I’m not trying to hide that I’m doing something to the drawing. But with them holding onto it, it doesn’t seem like I could be doing something that changes the orientation in any way.

- Here is a pdf of Nico’s house drawing. You can print it double-sided on a piece of paper if you want to try it out. If you’re going to carry it around with you, you should draw your own version. I do mine a little bigger than this.

- I also have a full-size version I put on my refrigerator, just waiting for someone to say, “Hey, why do you have such a cruddy drawing on your refrigerator?”

IMG_3899.JPG

- I’ve also done it without out the niece story. I just say it’s an old drawing I once made but there’s something strange about it. I have them hold the door on the “inside” side. Then I have them close their eyes, take a step forward, and turn the other direction. (As if they’ve stepped out of doorway and turned around.) And when the open up their eyes, they’re looking at the side, yet they’ve never let go of the picture.

Thanks to Nico and Kala for sharing their version of the trick.