Top 10 Jerx Videos

Today I thought I’d go through 10 of my favorite videos from the first five years of this site. I know sometimes people are watching at work and they have to skip the videos. So I figured I’d make this post so you can bookmark it and check out my favorites when it’s convenient to you.

One thing that’s been a bit of a bummer in regards to operating this site in the past couple years is that I no longer live near my friend Andrew whose hands and voice you would see and hear in most anything audio/visual on this site. We still see each other a few times a year (including an extended visit when we do the book mailing in January), and he still does most of the A/V stuff, but churning out any video that requires us to shoot some footage (rather than just edit other existing footage) is not as simple, since we’re not in a room together all that often.

But we have plans to remedy that situation post-covid, so you may see more videos coming in the future.

#10 - Bad Equivoque and Shitty Fishing

This is actually three videos that were posted at different times. Now, I genuinely don’t really like making fun of other magicians. And that’s not really what I’m doing here. These magicians are all using the technique in the way that many magicians are. The issue is that most magicians have become blind to the fact that this shit doesn’t fool people like they imagine it does.

Apologies to Chris Ramsay who does a lot of things well, but this technique isn't one of them. Think of it this way: If at the end of the selection procedure the spectator is holding one card, there is another "floating in the air," and then it turns out the "selection" is the one the magician is left with... that ain't good equivoque, baby-boo

Because nothing says "choosing" one of two objects quite like touching the other object.

[Here is Devin Knight trying to use the, “You’re not thinking of a ____, are you?” fishing technique] in his recent Penguin Live lecture. You'll notice the spectator doesn't react as if he has provided information, she reacts as if she's giving him information, because she is. And what does the audience do? They laugh, because it such a shitty, obvious gambit that they assume he must have meant it as a joke.

#9 L&L Music

This video was based on my hypothesis that the reason we used to think those old L&L videos were so good was because of the jazzy soundtrack. To prove that, I put the same music under video clips that weren’t so great to see if we still had a generally positive feeling about the video.

#8 - Better With The Jerx

Some of these videos I probably appreciate more than the average reader. Seeing this compilation of things people accomplished during the Better With The Jerx contest is one such video.

#7 - The Magician’s Response to Tragedy Library

After watching magicians come out with corny, tone-deaf videos after natural disasters and acts of terrorism, I proposed the idea of a subscription service that would create videos in response to terrible situations which had yet to occur. Then, when something terrible did happen, you could just add your own branding to the video and post it up on your social media. That way you’d be prepared for any situation that arose and you could be the first one to capitalize on the tragedy.

Original Post

#6 Double Date

In order to see how a layperson turns over and replaces the top card in a deck, I spent a couple of years recording people doing just that. This, again, is probably a video I would appreciate more than anyone else, because it gives me a chance to see friends and acquaintances from that time period. Many that I don’t get to see too often these days.

Original Post

#5 Yeah Alright Woo

The pre-lecture ejaculations of Dan Harlan. This video is a bit repetitive, but that’s kind of the point. And the punchline in the last two seconds still makes me laugh.

#4 - How to Do an Elmsley Count

To this day, about every couple of weeks, I’ll get an email from someone thanking me for this video. And occasionally someone cursing me for it. Because once you see the issue with the way a lot of people do their Elmsley Counts (including people famous for their card handling ability) it will start to annoy you. The Elmsley Count should look like you counted the cards from one hand into the other. It shouldn’t look like you removed all the cards under the top card as a perfectly squared block, and then counted those cards back onto the top card. But that’s how a lot (maybe most) magicians do it.

#3 - My Reveal

Derren Brown and Mac King coming out as the people behind this site are, of course, modern classics in the magic blog video genre.

#2 - Boss Ass Bish

To really appreciate this one, you probably have to go back to the mid-2000s and my old blog and a magician named Glenn Bishop who hated my guts. Here’s my recutting of Glenn Bishop’s promo video to make it appeal to a younger demographic.

Original Post

#1 - mysextutor.com

And a sentimental favorite as it was the first real post on this site.

There’s a lot of stupidity in these videos that I really appreciate. As well as a card reveal and reveals for the 37 force, the 1089 force, the circle/triangle force, and the grey elephant in Denmark force.

You’ll have to go this site to watch them.

(Sometimes that site gets jacked up if you’re viewing it in Chrome. I don’t really know why. If it’s messed up, you can watch the individual videos here and here. Maybe I should upload them to Pornhub.)

A GLOMM Non-Booting

I received an email from a source in Japan that made a serious allegation:

I unfortunately have another addition to the GLOMM ineligibility list. This time it's the former head of the JCMA (Japan Close-up Magic Association) who was arrested for touching up a guy who was sleeping, and recently paid off two other children in settlements after being accused of the same. 

It's been an open secret in Japan that he likes housing young boys for sleepovers, and amazingly he'd been doing it for years before anyone thought to step in. Even more amazingly, he has set up a new magic group for children after getting booted out of the JCMA.

The name of this creep is Shigeru Tashiro.

For those who are new here, the GLOMM is the magic organization I started which everyone with an interest in magic is already a member of. But you get kicked out if you’re a convicted sex offender (or because I personally don’t like you.)

Now, I specifically chose to kick out “convicted” sex offenders because it gets messy if you have a less clear-cut standard. And I didn’t want to have to spend a minute of my life contemplating whether some specific accusation was serious enough to kick someone out of my made-up magic organization.

So, since Shigeru Tashiro apparently settled out of court, he will not be kicked out of The GLOMM.

In fact, if anyone actually bothers to do a little fucking research, they’d realize that Shigeru Tashiro actually has a really good excuse for molesting that guy while he was sleeping. According to this brief article from the Tokyo Reporter:

Tashiro, who has been accused of quasi-indecent assault, admits to the allegations. “I touched him out of curiosity,” the suspect was quoted by police.

See? Okay? Can we put the pitchforks away now? He wasn’t touching the sleeping man because he’s some weird creep. He did it out of curiosity. That’s all. Just an unrelenting inquisitiveness about the world around us that makes us ponder things like, “Why is the sky blue,” or, “I wonder what this guy’s beautiful cock feels like.”

The article goes on to say:

According to police, Tashiro got to know the victim through an unspecified hobby. At the time of the incident, the victim and another person were staying the night at the residence.

I applaud the Japanese police and media for not mentioning magic specifically—just leaving it as an “unspecified hobby.” Whether you’re the molestor or the molestee, you don’t need the additional shame that would be brought on to you and your family if it got out that you were into magic.

My Japan-insider also alleged in another email:

The really fucked up thing is that his organization was the main accredited FISM group in Japan, which meant that if young Japanese magicians wanted to compete they had to go through him (and I wish I just meant that figuratively).

He slowly removed people off the board who may create problems, so by the end was constantly organizing sleepovers for children with no oversight at all. Even worse, the sleepovers have apparently started up again.

I’ll admit this doesn’t sound great, but what he fails to mention is if Shigeru Tashiro still has unaddressed curiosities he’d like to explore, like, “Precisely how tight are that boy’s buttocks?” or, “How warm is a human rectum?”

Let me guess… you guys want me to kick out Stephen Hawking from the GLOMM too? That’s how ridiculous this anti-curiosity witch-hunt is getting.

If you want to take a deeper dive into this story, I recommend this article. It’s in Japanese, but from what I can tell, the Google translation of the page is 100% absolutely perfect.

The headline says:

“Shigeru Tashiro's face image and Facebook! Semi-forced obscene acts! Gay!?”

It’s just as you learn in journalism school: Who? What? Where? When? Why? Gay!?

Later in the article it said something that really got me thinking.

Shigeru Tashiro criminal action machine of the case caused by suspect

Did Shigeru Tashiro like men?

It's possible that gays are homosexuals.

I mean… I guess I always knew it was conceivable—in a theoretical sense, at least—that gays are homosexuals. But now I’m really considering it for the first time in my life and for some reason it truly does feel possible. In some cases, maybe even probable (as crazy as that is to say).

And finally, that page also compiles some Twitter and Facebook commentary on the case. Many interesting thoughts there. Although the comment below is probably my favorite. It’s a real fucking roller coaster ride. I had to send it through translate on its own to double-check what it said:

You can’t argue with that.

Rough Draft Week Follow-Up

RE: Kettlecorn

This in ingenious. I tried it tonight and it killed. It’s so much more than the sum of its parts.—PH

***

That’s a great combination of two ideas that cancel each other perfectly.

The best thing about this routine is that it justifies you essentially imposing your performance on the spectator. “Hey, sorry to bother you, but can I show you this trick? I’ve been preparing for it for three days and I’m starting to get a headache. Okay? Thanks.” —PM

I like PM’s point. There are very few presentations in magic that justify why you have to do this particular effect right now.

And I also agree with PH that this is much stronger than you would imagine based on just the strength of the individual effects.

We think of Vanish 5000 as being an alternative for the thumbtip version. But seeing how well they work together has me wondering if there are other combinations of effects where we see one as a replacement for the other, when in fact they may be stronger when performed in concert.

RE: Lady in the Water

You could remove the photo paper completely, and have the image appear right on the bowl itself by using a photo emulsion like "liquid light".  Make the bottom of the bowl photo sensitive itself:  https://alternativephoto2015.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/liquid-light/ —DL

That looks amazing. I don’t know how feasible it would be to pull off in the course of a trick, but if you could, that would be dope.

RE: Precocious Precogs

A significant reason I pushed pause on pursuing social magic for a while was having kids. Soon, we were surrounded by small catastrophe-generators, since you tend to hang out with other parents in the same boat. I quickly learned that all the adults' brains are about 40% occupied by their little kids at all times; any attempt at a magic trick runs a significant risk of a serious (and probably more important) distraction. I think the answer here is unfortunately to not try a trick at all unless you're confident some little simpleton won't try to eat a woodchip or something. Your post today seems to have a great approach, but I wonder if you have any more advice about trick management around teeny boppers. —CC

I’ve always had a pretty good natural radar for when it’s a good time to show people a trick and when they’re just not in the state of mind to really engage with it. But since I can sort of feel it out naturally, I’ve never really given it much thought to formulate it into “advice.”

I have definitely run into the situation where a parent is only half-there and can barely hold up their end of a conversation, much less be present for a magic trick. But that being said, I’ve also been in situations where parents crave nothing more than a distraction and are completely down to see a magic trick. So I think it cuts both ways.

If there’s any question, then I would lean towards a trick that incorporates the kid directly, so the parent doesn’t have to turn their attention away from the kid completely. See “Kids and Animals” from The JAMM #7 for more on this subject.

RE: Under-Developed

I liked that idea about using the Photographic paper and developing it to show the match for the mustache.  I thought of using the dry sharpie, as you had mentioned, and instantly nixed it for the exact reason you described.  Upon reading the next thought, about predicting a location, I thought of an idea combining the two thoughts mentioned.  What if you had a photographic paper that has many (even 50-100) location written on it, while on the other side is the location you will develop in your presentation.  You can then go and place a mark (circle or X) on the written location in the list you are forcing.  Then use the dry sharpie method to make it appear that they marked that location and then demonstrate that their intuition or whatever is spot on as you flip over the paper and develop it to show a picture of that exact location.  Would love to hear your thoughts! —MD

I think it's okay, but I don't generally like using the dry marker ploy to choose something from a list.

What I particularly like—as in the mustache trick—is the idea that they draw a mark on the page somewhere and when the photo develops, that mark makes sense as a part of the image.

A mustache might be too ambitious. But certainly we can use the dry marker principle to get them to think they drew a line or something else simple.

So, let’s say they blindly “draw” a line on the photo. Then when you develop the image we see it’s a photo of a bridge that is out and the line they “randomly” “drew” is a line that connects the two sides of the bridge. “Oh, thank god. The people in that car can now cross safely.”

Or maybe they “draw” an X randomly on the page, then when the photo is developed they’ve put the X right in the winning spot in a photograph of kids playing tic-tac-toe on the street with chalk.

Something like that is good because their mark would add to the image, rather than just marking something on top of an image.

RE: Starcle Curve

I received a lot of positive feedback on this one. People were very happy with it. And I’ve become even more happy with it after performing it again this past weekend. For some reason, over the years, Starcle has come up a bunch of times in emails to me from people wondering if I had a presentation for the effect. I think everyone admires the method, but it didn’t necessarily lend itself to the type of magic they wanted to do. Hopefully this presentation will work for those of you who weren’t into the traditional presentation people use with this trick.

Of course, if you don’t do the standard patter, you won’t be able to do the ever-hilarious joke where you hold it up to your face and say, “Do you see the man in the moon?” So that’s a trade-off you’re going to have to be willing to accept.

Another fun joke at this point in the routine would be to say, “Hey look, I made a toilet seat cover. Do you want to shit on my face?”

My Simple Note-Taking Set-Up

You’ve talked about your organizational system, which I’ve modified for my own use, but I don’t know if you’ve mentioned how you keep notes (if you do keep notes) when going through a new magic book. Any tips on this? —ES

Sure. This is what I use for note-taking with a magic book or any other non-fiction book that might be of some functional use to me. It’s pretty straightforward, but I know a couple of other people who have adopted it and found it useful too.

The heart of the idea is this: You need to have two places where you’re keeping your notes. So two notebooks, or two different documents on your computer. Or, if you’re the sort of person who marks up the physical book you’re reading, you just need one notebook in addition to the physical book.

Here’s what I do…

When I read a book I keep note of anything that’s of interest to me. It might be a trick I want to try or a quote I like or an interesting concept or a joke or a clever bit of writing. Whatever it is, I capture it in my first notebook. This is my “Comprehensive” notebook.

When I’m done with the book, I read through the notes I’ve taken in my Comprehensive notebook and I take notes on those notes in my second notebook.

Here I just pluck out anything I noticed the first time around that requires action on my part.

In the Comprehensive notebook I’m going to be broadly noting anything of interest that I may want to consider again at a future point. Anything that piques my interest in any respect.

In the Action notebook, I’m going to be plucking the things from the Comprehensive notebook that I need to do something about. It’s part “notes,” part “to do list.”

If I’m reading a book about starting a doughnut making business, I may note some different recipes and some fun doughnut trivia and some inspirational doughnut quotes in the Comprehensive notebook.

Then, from that notebook, I will pull the things that I want to be proactive about. 1. This is a doughnut recipe I want to try soon. 2. This is the paperwork I need to file. 3. This a book recommendation I want to follow up on. That sort of thing.)

I came up with this system after vacillating between the two for a while. Either I’d keep notes that were so all-encompassing that the important action-oriented things got lost. Or I’d just take notes on the things I wanted to take action soon and I’d fail to note all the things I might want to revisit at a later date. So I’d have no way to recapture the nuance and flavor of the book I read without going back and rereading the whole thing.

Breaking it up like this gives me the best of both worlds.

The Juxe: How to Introduce New Music to People featuring A Giant Dog

I’ve really been enjoying your Saturday music posts and I’ve found half a dozen or so bands and artists I really like through them. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on ways to introduce people to new music. My wife is open to discovering new music but I find it hard to get her hooked on any. —SR

Well, I never push music—or anything for that matter—on anybody. So let me put that out there first. I treat everyone like cats. I don’t pursue cats hoping they’ll let me pet them. I sit back and get on with my life and if a cat jumps in my lap, well then buddy, you’re going to get your little face scratched so good.

I try to be that way with music, magic, conversation, etc. I never push any of that on people. But I try to make it clear there’s an open invitation and then make it worth their while if they decide to join me.

So all that is just to say that I don’t try to introduce people to music unless they’ve expressed an interest.

Once they do, then I have a little plan I follow.

Here’s the mistake people make. They’ll say, “Oh, I know this great band, you have to hear them,” and then they’ll play them a song or an album. That doesn’t work too often. A song is too little. An album is too much.

I have a playlist on my phone that is made up of a bunch of different three-song introductions to some of my favorite bands. Three songs is good to give people a flavor for the band without wasting their time if they’re not into the music. The three songs might be all from my favorite album from the band. Or they might be songs from across their oeuvre.

So, let’s say you had never heard of the Beatles. I might play you something from their earlier records, then something from a more experimental phase, and then something from their final record. So you’d get a general sense of how the band evolved over time. Or maybe I’d pick a John song, a George song, and a Paul song (fuck Ringo) so you get a sense of their various personalities through their music.

I’d play you that three song introductory mix sometime, usually when we’re driving somewhere. A long road-trip is a good time to focus in on music. If you were into the band I might play you more at that time or get together sometime later to listen to my favorite Beatles album. I’m a big fan of the “let’s hang out and listen to an album” meetup. I know that seems like something out of the 1960s, 70s, or 80s. But it’s still my scene, and I’ve really connected with a number of people in my life that way through music.

Of course, for some people, that’s just not something they’re into. So, as I said, I don’t force it. I’ll connect with them in some other way.

---

Here’s a little three-song mix from the band A Giant Dog out of Austin, TX. They’re a rock/punk outfit featuring an incredible front-woman, Sabrina Ellis. She kinds of reminds of Janis Joplin but with a ramped up sexual energy.

She’s joined frequently on lead vocals by guitarist Andrew Cashen. They have a great chemistry together and also front the less-punkish, but equally awesome band, Sweet Spirit.

Here are three A Giant Dog songs:

First is “Sleep When Dead.” one of my favorite songs from their first album on Merge records, Pile, which came out in 2016.

This toned-down acoustic rendition of their song, “Jizzney,” showcases how nicely their voices mesh.

This video for the song, “Lucky Ponderosa,” does a great job of capturing the infectious high-energy of their live shows, which are so damn good.

Rough Draft Week: Starcle Curve

In the last issue of the newsletter I wrote about The Learning Curve Universal Presentation.

This is an idea I had for using it with Dan Harlan’s Starcle trick. It gives the presentation a little more of a build and an arc, as opposed to the original. Not that there’s anything wrong with the original. This is just more my style.

So you tell people you’ve been learning the ancient Japanese art of paper tearing and offer to show them some examples.

You take a napkin and unfold it. Have a spectator write a 1 in the middle and a 1 in one of the corners. Fold the napkin back into its normal square configuration and tear out a 90 degree arc from the corner of the folded napkin that contains the center of the napkin. Unfold the frame and unfold the center to show you’ve torn out a circle of a napkin. Big fuckin’ whoop.

“That’s considered Level One Japanese paper tearing.”

Ball everything up and toss it aside.

You take a second napkin, and have the person write a 7 in the center and a 7 in one of the corners. Fold it up, as per Starcle, except for the last fold. Then with one straight tear you will tear out a star shape. Unfold the frame and center piece to show the two stars.

“That’s considered Level Seven Japanese paper tearing.”

Ball it all up and toss it aside.

“Would you like to see level 816 Japanese Paper Tearing?”

This is intriguing. They will want to see it.

Unfold a final napkin and have them write 816 in the middle and in a corner.

Fold up the napkin as per Starcle. Tear out the middle, allowing the spectator to hold onto and keep the middle piece.

You then unfold the frame, again showing a circle.

“I know, I know,” you say. “It looks like we’re back at Level One, but this is what makes it Level 816.” And you then unfold the torn out portion to show it’s a star.

I think this is pretty close to how I’ll do it going forward. But I’ve only had a chance to try it out twice, that’s why it’s in Rough Draft Week.

The first time I did it, it went quite well, but I wanted to prevent the idea that I had maybe switched in some pieces from the previous examples. That’s when I added the balling up of the old pieces, as well as the spectator writing the numbers on the napkin.

With that change, I think it’s..

Thanks to supporter PS for sending me on this path of a presentation for Starcle. He had written an email and mentioned the idea of doing Starcle twice. First just demonstrating your ability to tear out the star by itself, and then doing it again with the actual Starcle effect. That idea grew into the full presentation above.

Rough Draft Week: Under-Developed

On Tuesday I shared an idea based on an email conversation with supporter Sam W. This is another idea that came up in that conversation. It seems like it would be quite difficult to pull off, but if you could, I feel like it would be very powerful.

From Sam W:

One of the most magical experiences of my life, was the first time I went into a darkroom (at the age of 15), and I placed a blank piece of paper into a tray of liquid and watched as my image faded into view. It felt incredible. I get great enjoyment in teaching my friends how to develop photos and watching as they make their first print!

I was wondering if there was a way I could recreate that experience for the people I'm performing for.

From Me:

I don't really have any ideas off the top of my head for this. Although I did think how cool it would be if you had someone think of any object and write it down. Then you tell them that they've actually written on photographic paper (or whatever it's called) and you develop the paper and the photo that appears is of the object they wrote down. That may be impossible for a number of reasons, but it would be cool.

From Sam W:

Some form of what you described isn't necessarily impossible. I guess you'd need to have some kind of limited range of objects they can choose from and an index of preexposed but undeveloped photos. 
It would be a nightmare to setup, and I'm not sure if there is any time limit between exposing the paper and developing it. But what a great idea to explore.

---

I like this idea quite a bit. So, let’s say they write down “Apple” on the sheet. When it’s developed, they would see an image of an apple appear with their writing overlaid on top of the image. If they felt like the word was truly a free choice, that would be an awfully strong trick.

It might be a good revelation for one of those categories of objects where it seems like there are lots of options, but really there are only a half dozen or so that are regularly named. Then you would just need an index of those undeveloped photos.

The one thing I’m not sure about is if an undeveloped photo needs to be completely in the dark (or red light) until it’s developed. If that’s the case, that could make things a little awkward. But potentially interesting as well.

For example, you have someone join you in a completely dark closet or room. You ask her to name a European city, and you have her write it down. You then ask her if she has any idea why you’re in a darkened room. She says, “Because you’re a creep?” You say, “No, it’s because you didn’t just write the word you were thinking on a piece of paper. It’s actually an undeveloped photo.” You turn on a red light. “You could have named any city in Europe. I gave you the chance to change your mind a few times. You could have picked Venice, Rome, Barcelona, London, or 100 other options, but you settled on Paris.”

You then develop the image and of course the Eiffel Tower or whatever appears under the word they wrote.

The darkened room would likely make the swapping in of the correct image that much easier.

Another idea I had, which I have absolutely no method for, would be to give someone a sheet of photographic paper and tell them to draw a mustache on the paper. The mustache can be drawn anywhere, in any orientation, and of any size. Then when the photo is developed it’s a picture of a man and the mustache is drawn right below his nose.

The closest thing I came to a method is using a dry (non-working) Sharpie. So—in typical dry Sharpie fashion—you tell the spectator to make a “scribbled line” on other side of the page without looking. They would then see the pre-drawn line and assume it’s the line they made. The problem is, I think there’s likely to be too much variation between what they think they drew and what they end up seeing on the paper.

That method does have potential for a similar type of effect. Maybe you use the dry Sharpie to have them make an X in a “random” place on the paper and when it’s developed the photo is seen to be a picture of your high school marching band and the spectator has X’d out the face of that bitch flautist who broke your heart.

Okay, perhaps not that exact premise, but I do think there is something in the combination of a dry marker and an undeveloped photo that could lead to something interesting effect-wise.