Dustings #47

If I had to guess what the darkest period in magic history was, I would guess that it would be the time between June 1920 and November 1923.

You see in the June 1920 issue of The Magical Bulletin…

There appeared a trick called…

But it wasn’t until three years later, in the November 1923 issue, that we finally got some patter for the trick, thanks to the ever-reliable, “Mystic Eugene.”

Just picture yourself. It’s 1920. Ya hoe’s got a bunch of wands and you finally found a trick that would allow you to exhibit them, but you don’t have any good patter for the trick for three years!

It must have been a troubling time. Magicians all over the country just dumping a pile of “they hoe’s” wands on a folding table, poking through them and stumbling their way through a presentation with nothing much to say. “Uh yeah… so these are the Wands of Mah Hoe. She’s got… well… it has to be said… she’s got a lot of wands. I guess I thought most women would have one… at most. But she’s got… [counting under his breath before he gives it up] yeah… it’s quite the collection. Mah hoe seems to particularly like these thick black ones. Which is kind of intimidating honestly. And I don’t know what mah hoe did with this one, but it fucking smells like shit!”

Does anyone know how to get me a speaking gig at the next Conference on Magic History?

---

I do like “Mystic Eugene’s” patter as indicated in the image above. It must have been nice coming up with magic patter in the 1920s. Any magic trick with a strange object? “Uhm… I guess it came from that weird and mysterious land of India. The fuck do I know?”

Everybody everywhere who wasn’t snowy white was some exotic source of potential patter material. “Once, whilst exploring a bizarre and inscrutable land at the furthest reaches of the globe, I encountered a marvelous little creature called a Jew. And he gave me this bag to keep an egg in!”

---

I’m curious how much people care about the issue of “google-ability” of a trick. It’s something I think about quite a bit, but I can’t really tell how much of an issue it is to others. If you get a chance, please submit a response to this survey.

When it comes to the google-ability of a trick, which statement best represents your feelings.

[Update: Survey is now closed]

1. I make an effort to perform tricks that would be very difficult to find information about online.

2. While I don’t want people to be able to find the SECRET to an effect that I do, I don’t mind if they search and find that it’s a trick you can buy and that others are doing the same trick.

3. As long as they enjoy the trick in the moment, I don’t really care what they search or learn about it afterwards.

I realize these are pretty broad categories, so just pick whichever seems closest to your feelings on the issue.

---

I will happily pimp any half-way reputable, non-magic product or project that includes some kind of covert tip of the hat to this site.

For example, reader John M. Green has a new book coming out…

Which includes this passage…

He cleverly made my pseudonym inconspicuous by adding one other completely unknown magician—Joshua Jay—to the list too. That way it doesn’t stand out as the one people have never heard of. Instead they get to Joshua Jay and think, “Oh, okay, so this list is going to contain some nobodies too. Got it.”

Certified Organic

The shame of the downfall of the Magic Cafe is that it’s very rare for people to forward me a post suggesting I talk some shit about it. This used to happen all the time back in the mid-2000s. It was really the foundation of my old blog. Sadly, it doesn’t happen much these days. People sometimes ask, “Why don’t you bag on the Cafe like you used to?” It’s sort of like asking, “Why don’t you go to roller rink anymore to meet girls?” Because it’s dead, dude. The girls are elsewhere.

So I was happy recently to receive a link to a single post from three different people. It felt like old times.

The post comes from Cameron Francis, who was writing in a thread about a trick called, Thy Will Be Done. That trick is a variation and expansion of the Free Will effect. The spectator places three items in three different locations and that information (in this version) is (for some reason) predicted on a tarot card.

One person said this seemed very “organic.” Another person said it seemed that a custom printed Tarot card seemed the “opposite of organic.”

And that’s when Cameron chimed in

I like Cameron as a person, but this is indeed one of the dumbest takes on the Cafe in a while. He’s not alone though. I’ve heard other people rail against the word “organic” being used in magic. And, similar to this post, they don’t seem to have the foggiest idea what is meant by the word in a magic context. If you’re equating a sharpie, a deck of cards, a Ball and Vase, and a specially printed tarot card as all being more or less the same because they’re “friggin props,” you don’t quite have the understanding to be talking about this.

However, I will cut Cameron some slack here for one reason. The word is overused and abused. Like “impromptu” before it, the word is beginning to lose its meaning. When people were saying things like, “Yes, it’s impromptu, so long as you have the gimmick on you,” it was clear we needed to re-establish what the word meant. “Organic” could stand to be defined more clearly as well, because it is a useful label when accurately used to talk about magic.

---

Cameron seems to be suggesting that all props are the same. That because people don’t carry Sharpie markers with them every day, then they are pretty much viewed the same way as a Finger Chopper.

But, of course, spectators don’t view these sorts of things the same way. One they see as an everyday object, and one they see as an obvious magic prop. Unless this is your spectator’s first day on the planet earth they are going to have different expectations for these two objects. The thing they’re completely unfamiliar with is going to be fairly suspect. And the thing that looks like something they have in their junk-drawer at home will be much less suspect. This is not some crazy theory of mine. This is understood by anyone who performs for normal humans outside of a professional performing environment.

So there are objects used in performance. Some of them are clearly Magic Props. Some of them are Normal Objects.

What makes a prop “organic” is when a Normal Object is used in the environment in which it’s typically found.

Organic Prop - A normal object in the environment in which it’s typically found.

If I make a can of tuna vanish in my kitchen that would be a trick using an organic prop. If I bring the can of tuna to the coffee shop and vanish it there, then I’ve done a trick with an (apparently) normal object, but it’s not an organic prop in that situation.

---

Ah! But here’s where we get to another important concept.

A magic trick can use organic props, but it can also have an organic premise. And those two factors aren’t necessarily related.

Organic Premise - A premise which naturally flows from the real-world situation in which the trick occurs.

If we order a pizza and I notice I only have a one dollar bill, not the $20 that I thought I had, and so I use magic to transform that $1 into a $20, that is an “Organic Premise.” We needed a certain amount of money, so I took the money that we had and transformed it into what we needed.

As regular readers can probably imagine, I love effects with organic premises, because they don’t have the boundaries of a typical magic trick. It’s not: “Here’s where the magic trick starts. Here’s where it stops.” And that causes these tricks to have a different affect on people. It captures their imagination differently. And not because the trick feels more “real” but because it feels more vital.

Now, to be clear, a trick can have “organic” props and inorganic premises and vice-versa.

If I do the Cups and Balls at a coffee shop with a bunch of coffee shop items for the props, those are organic props used for an inorganic premise.

If we walk into the coffee shop and you say, “Shoot, they don’t have the sweetener I like.” And I say, “Hold on. I think I can help.” And I reach into my computer bag and pull out a strange little plastic box with a bunny on the top and I show it empty and then tap it with a magic wand I carry with me, and then I open it again to reveal packets of your favorite artificial sweetener, then I would have used inorganic props (obvious magic props) to achieve an organic premise (satisfying your need for something that’s not present).

So the word “organic” can be applied to a trick in a couple different ways.

---

“Organic” in the magic context simply means “emerging naturally.”

Organic Props come naturally from the physical environment.

Organic Premises come naturally from the situation you’re in.

In my experience, the hardest hitting magic is organic in both senses. It uses normal objects, in their environment, in service of a premise that seems to arise naturally.

Obviously it would be very difficult to construct everything you do so it meets this standard, but it’s definitely an ideal worth striving towards (for the social performer). In fact, making your magic feel more organic is about the single most important thing you can do to allow people to connect to your magic. So the attitude of “I wish we didn’t talk about organic! We should all just do Ball and Vase like R. Paul Wilson does!!” is one of the more bizarre ones that I’ve heard.

Cameron Francis is not the only person I’ve heard pushing the “Let’s do away with the concept of organic magic” notion. But it never seems well reasoned. It always just seems like an excuse for meaningless card tricks or 6-phase Okito box routines.

Here are the situations where “organic” magic doesn’t matter as much:

1. If you only perform for other magicians.

2. If you only perform professionally. (The professional performance is already a non-organic experience. So it doesn’t matter at all if your premises are organic. And doesn’t matter as much about your props either.)

3. If your personality/presence is already so awkward and artificial then yes, it might make no difference whether you pull out a Sharpie or a Finger Cutter.

---

If you’re paying close attention, you may see that I’m hitting on some similar themes as I have recently. And that’s because the concept of “organic-ness” is the inverse of the Hitch concept I’ve been talking about recently. Organic premises, organic props, and organic movements all arise naturally, they don’t cause the Hitch sensation in spectators that will happen when those things are questionable in some way.

---

Let’s loop back around. Is having the reveal for a Free Will-style effect on a tarot card organic in any meaning of the word?

No, not at all.

It’s not an organic premise (the placement of random items has nothing to do with tarot cards) and a specially printed Tarot card is not an organic prop. You might say, “They don’t know it’s specially printed,” but I think the fact the ancient magician is holding a pen in his hand might tip them off a little. (I haven’t seen the actual gimmicked card though, so perhaps it’s not so obviously a pen? Could it be a quill or some shit?)

But, similar to what I said in the Hitch posts, a trick that’s not “organic” in any way isn’t necessarily a bad trick. It just a trick that doesn’t have that particular quality.

Without trying it out, I can’t really tell how this trick—Thy Will Be Done— would go over with people. I think it will likely fool them. I think the reveal is “cute” (which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your sensibilities). And I think it could easily be an entertaining trick. I can certainly understand why people would want to perform this. So I’m not saying it’s a bad trick.

The point of this post is not to say every trick has to be “organic” in some way. My point is only that “organic” is a valuable designation when talking about the qualities of a trick. And while it’s perfectly fine to not be concerned about it for yourself and your performances, it’s mistaken to think that somehow audiences don’t register this quality. (I’ll have some old testing results to share on this sometime soon if I can track them down.) While it may be true that audiences assume a magician is going to do something random with some unusual objects, that doesn’t mean they don’t notice and appreciate it when the props and premises are organic.

Monday Mailbag #51

I’ve been keeping a performance log of my social magic performances for a while and have been including spectator reactions on a scale of 1 to 10. As I’m performing more, I’m finding it challenging to come up with an honest and consistent criteria for what sort of reaction my spectator has, particularly when it’s somewhere in the middle of the range. How do you work out the level of your spectator’s reactions without grilling them about it afterwards? —DW

Okay, there are a couple techniques I can offer. First would be to go down to fewer categories. Instead of going from 1-10 (which I used to use as well), just use a scale like this:

No Reaction
Mild Reaction
Good Reaction
Strong Reaction
Very Strong Reaction

This makes it much easier to categorize their reactions.

If they give you essentially nothing, then it’s “No Reaction.”

If they do react, but not enough that you’d consider it good, then it’s a “Mild Reaction.”

On the other end of the spectrum, a “Very Strong Reaction” is sort of self-evident as well.

The only point where it will get muddy sometimes is judging between “Good” and “Strong.” You’ll frequently get reactions that sort of straddle that line. Like it might be an intense initial reaction, but it dies off sort of quick. Or it might be a quieter reaction, but one that goes on for a significant amount of time. In those cases, time is usually the important variable for me. A “good” reaction that goes on for quite a while becomes a “strong” reaction, in my book. A strong reaction that is brief, would probably be classified as a “good.”

Another thing to keep in mind is that it’s really your own assessment of their reaction that is important. You don’t have to drill down an exact number with them. This is the sort of thing we do when we’re doing focus group testing, but that’s more for the purpose of being able to compare one approach to another. When it comes to tracking reactions for the social magician, it’s more about how close to your ideal reaction you feel you got with the spectator.

Going back a few years, if I just asked people I performed for if they liked the trick or not, they would have said, “Yeah, it was great!” And while that seems like a very positive reaction, the truth is that—while I knew they were enjoying the tricks—I felt there was the potential for much deeper, more intense reactions. So really, when I’m judging their reactions, it’s not about getting an arbitrary number from them. It’s about being as attuned as possible to their verbal and non-verbal feedback. And trying to be as honest about what I’m getting back as possible. Any element of self-delusion in your assessment of their reactions is going to make tracking such things completely useless.

---

You should consider a weekly post giving your initial assessments on the new releases that came out that week. I think you have a good ability to “see around corners” regarding issues a trick might have and so it could be helpful to others to post about what you see as potential flaws in a trick. Could save us some money. —HH

I’ll consider such a thing. My issues with the idea are these:

1. I’d probably just be repeating stuff that is already being said about the product by others online. I don’t know that my insights from a quick glance at a new product would be that unique.

2. I feel a little bad shitting on products when they first come out. I know I shouldn’t. They put the product out, they should be prepared for criticism. It was easier, I feel, back on my old blog to tear into tricks, because there seemed to be more utter morons releasing absolute garbage. These days the garbage is a little more nuanced. And the morons seem slightly better intentioned. However I’m still more than happy to tear into anyone who truly deserves it.

We’ll see. I may give it a shot sometime this month and see how it goes. I’d like to include the Virtual Focus Group and get their thoughts on things, but that would have to be done in a slightly different way than I’ve used that group in the past. So we’ll see how it goes.

---

Is there a way to find an audience that is NOT interested in learning the secrets to tricks? I performed the Rubik’s Cube in Bottle effect at a friend’s wedding reception recently and it got a good reaction. A couple weeks later when I brought up the trick casually in conversation, the people I performed it for said “We found that trick online.” So what I thought would be a cool souvenir of something I did at their wedding turned into a just something you could buy online. Any way to avoid this? —GG

Well, you definitely can, over time, find a certain type of person to perform for who is not going to try and figure out your tricks. But that’s going to limit your audiences greatly. Most people’s natural response—at least when you first start showing them magic—is to want to know how it’s done.

The better option is to look for material that isn’t so easily unravelled with the most obvious google search. And then take that material and drown it in presentation, so their mind is occupied with more than just the impossibility at the heart of the effect. (My go-to example for this is Multiple Universe Selection, which is primarily a card change, but no one googles, “How do I make a card change,” after seeing it.)

The innate problem of the Rubik’s Cube in bottle trick is that it presupposes an audience who would be excited enough to have a Rubik’s Cube in a bottle for a souvenir, but somehow not interested enough to take 15 seconds to search magic rubik’s cube bottle to understand this is something you can buy off the shelf.

If you’re okay with the audience doing a little research and being satisfied they didn’t see something truly unexplainable, then you don’t need to worry about this. But if you’re not, then you have to be cognizant of the material you choose more so than who you’re performing for.

Dustings #46

In Penn and Teller’s book, How to Play With Your Food, they introduced a game called, “The Parsley Game.” This game is played in a restaurant and involves trying to get the parsley garnish from your plate onto your friend’s without them noticing. I used to play this with people in high school whenever we went out to eat. Then, like 15 years ago, restaurants were like, “Remind us again why we bother putting parsley on plates?” And, with no suitable answer, parsley seemed to vanish from restaurant plates altogether.

Well, I have another game for you to play with your friends that restauranteurs can’t take away from. It’s called the Sexual Psychology Game. I got the idea from the “pick-up artist,” Mystery. Mystery was a guy whose answer to the question, “How do you meet women?” is, “Well, a big fuzzy hat don’t hurt!”

Watch the short video below of Mystery talking about his affinity for magic. Pay special attention to how he says, “sexual psychology” about halfway through. It is seriously corny.

Now, much like the Parsley Game involved slipping your parsley onto someone else’s plate without getting caught, the goal of the Sexual Psychology Game is to slip that phrase into conversation before your friend can stop you. The rules are that you have to insert it into a list and you have to give that beat pause that Mystery gives before he says it. If you get the phrase in before they can stop you, you win. If they anticipate you’re about to say it and they stop you or say it themselves during that pause, they win. Obviously this is a game that the other person has to know is happening, or it’s a little easy to win.

In practice, what it goes like is this. You’ll say something like, “I’m going to pick up some food for poker tonight. I’ll get pizza, chips, wings…sexual psychology,” and you cap off your win with Mystery’s knowing smirk.

If your friends pounce during the pause and stop you from saying the phrase, then they win. It’s especially fun if you have some money riding on it.

The game is sweeping the nation. Have fun.

---

Pete McCabe sent me this M.C. Escher quote that goes along nicely with the subject of Hitches as discussed on this site recently.

The element of mystery to which he wants to call attention must be surrounded and veiled by perfectly ordinary everyday self-evidences that are recognizable to everyone. That environment, which is true to nature and acceptable to every superficial observer, is indispensable for causing the desired shock.
—M. C. Escher

The most evident example of this sort of thing is in regards to odd props. If you have some weird box with dragons on it that you slide a coin into in order to make it vanish, you may fool people, but you probably won’t capture their imaginations with that sort of mystery.

But a lot of people who are quite cognizant of the fact that we should ideally use everyday objects in our magic seem to have no problem using questionable logic, questionable actions, questionable (often meaningless) premises. And my point is simply that these things have the exact same effect as the questionable prop. They cause your audience to disconnect from the effect because they have to start excusing or overlooking things they’re seeing. At that completely undermines powerful magic.

---

Here’s an idea for Penguin or Vanishing Inc or whoever wants to take it.

An In-House Gimmick Maker

For a certain segment of the magic-buying public, it’s very annoying to buy a trick and then find out you need to construct the gimmick as well. A lot of us don’t want to split cards or sew with that elastic thread and that sort of garbage.

So, what would be nice, is if I buy something from your company, I would have the added option of buying the completed gimmick (at the same time or at a later date). That would make me more inclined to buy the original product from your shop and it would be an additional revenue source.

And it should be a win-win for everyone involved, because a gimmick that might take me 60 minutes to construct poorly, might take a more crafty individual with practice at building that particular gimmick 20 minutes to build well.

And it’s not like you have to house these individuals in a sweatshop, cranking out floating matches and peeing in diapers because they don’t get bathroom breaks. They could work from home. They could pee in a diaper from home.

---

I’ve received a few emails about the 50-Piece Interaction Toolkit from my last post. Most asking what other types of things I might consider adding to the toolkit. I don’t really know. The idea is simply just that you should keep a list of the type of information you want to have facility with. Not every example of that type of information, of course. But a little basic toolkit that you look over and update from time to time so that you’re never completely just relying on plucking something from your memory. The toolkit is there for when your memory fails you.

As far as what other types of information you might put in there, that’s going to depend on your interests. 5 short poems, 5 favorite quotes, 5 life hacks, 5 interesting facts, 5 obscure sexual positions, 5 bible verses, 5 simple songs on acoustic guitar, or whatever.

This isn’t a place for your true passions in life. If you’re a priest you’re not going to track 5 bible verses. If guitar is your primary hobby, you’ll probably know more than 5 songs.

What this is, is a mental “junk drawer” for the stuff that might come in handy, but for which you have no current system to organize and remember that information.

The 50-Piece Interaction Toolkit (A 100-Trick Repertoire Supplement)

About six years ago I was at a dinner party at my friend’s place in Brooklyn. One of the guests there was one of the most charming and interesting dudes I’ve ever met. No matter where the conversation went, it seemed like he had an interesting anecdote, fact, or recommendation to add. He didn’t make himself the center of attention, but whenever there was an ebb in the conversation he had something to contribute to keep it rolling.

A month or so later, I ran into him a second time, and again he impressed me with his conversational skills and his ability to have something to share that was relevant to whatever conversation was going on around him. I feel I’m pretty good in conversation, but my skill is more in the realm of the bullshitting, off-the-cuff conversational style. This guy had—I felt—more concrete contributions to give. And at one point I pulled him aside and complimented him on that and said, “I wish my mind worked like that. I wish I had such faculty with information.”

And then he pulled out his phone and said, “Let me show you something.” And he opened his Notes app and showed me some notes he had on his phone. One was titled, “Stories.” Another one, “Trivia.” Another one, “Recommendations.” He had a different list for all types of information he might use in conversation. “I don’t think many people just naturally remember all these sorts of things. And those that do are probably bad conversationalists in other ways,” he said.

This was kind of a revelation for me. I think at first it felt like cheating. “Hey, you only have all those things to share because you wrote them down and remembered them!” But I changed my tune pretty quickly. He wasn’t scripting his conversations. He was just making note of things he may want to share with others in the future, and he would regularly review those notes to keep them at the top of his mind. That immediately seemed like a much better system than mine which was:

1. Have something interesting happen to me.

2. Think, This will make a good story to share sometime.

3. Six hours later think, What was that interesting thing that happened earlier?

4. The next day forget anything interesting ever happened altogether.

So I came to accept that idea that tracking this sort of thing was in no way cheating. I’m not stealing other people’s stories or opinions, I’m just making note of mine so they’re not lost to the ether.

So now, in addition to my 100 Trick Repertoire, I keep something of a 50-Piece Interaction Toolkit. These are some stories, ideas, games, etc., that I have in the back of my mind, should I need them. Some are strictly conversational things. Others—due to my interests—are magic-related, or tangential to magic. I don’t unload a bunch of these in a single conversation. But making note of these things and reviewing them every now and then allows me to have much better access to them in the situations where they might be useful. I find they come in handy specifically when dealing with people I don’t have a ton in common with, often kids, or just other people with whom I’m not likely to get into a “deep” conversation.

Here are the things I try and keep a repository of:

5 Personal Anecdotes

I sometimes ask people for an interesting story from their life, and it’s kind of shocking how this can paralyze people. Even people who have led very interesting lives. They don’t have a single story that jumps to the front of their mind about something interesting that happened to them.

Now, for the most part, you’re going to want the personal anecdotes you share to flow naturally from the conversation. But having a few go-to stories can be helpful in certain situations.

5 Jokes

I’m not a big joke teller, in the sense of scripted jokes. And, in fact, I don’t think I’ve ever met someone who loves telling those types of jokes who is the sort of person you’d want to hear a joke from. But just as a human living on the planet earth, you should have a couple favorite jokes in your back-pocket to crack up kids or shock the elderly.

5 Stunts

Those sort of magic-adjacent things that kids or bored people enjoy like balancing forks on a coin on the edge of a glass or burbling a pea.

5 Magic Tricks to Teach

When people find out you do magic, they often want you to teach them a trick. It’s good to have a small handful of tricks with garbage secrets that you don’t mind sharing. One of my go-to tricks to teach people is the one below. It’s a good enough trick to fool them, the secret is mildly interesting, and simple enough for them to remember. But the secret doesn’t really ruin any other tricks in magic.

5 Bar Bets

I don’t actually usually do these in a bar, but goddamn do I hate the term, “Betchas.” So let’s just call them Bar Bets. Simple puzzles, games, and bets with everyday objects. You can find a bunch of these on youtube. Or go for Dan Harlan’s Mindboggler’s or Diamond Jim Tyler’s material if you want to take a deeper dive.

5 Favorites

It amazes me how bad people are at talking about the things they like. “I’m really into music,” they’ll say. “Cool,” I say. “What’s caught your ear recently?” Then they stammer and stutter around for a few minutes until they say, “Oh, yeah, one thing I sort of like is this new Shannon & The Clams album.”

I met a guy who was really into hot sauce the other day and I said, “Nice! I want to try your favorite, what do you recommend?” And he just froze up.

I used to be like this too. Just because—while I enjoy many things—I put no thought into how I might express what I’m enjoying to other people.

Be prepared to talk about the subjects you’re into.

This shouldn’t catch you off guard. You brought the damn subject up. Have something to say about it.

What I like to do is break it down this way. For any given subject I’m into, I’ll think of an all-time favorite, a current favorite, and something I’m looking forward to. And have a sentence or so to say about each.

So, being into music, I’m fully prepared to say a little something about an all-time favorite band, a current favorite band or album, and something I’m looking forward to.

I recommend also doing this for books, tv, and movies. Then you can add at least one other category so you have your five category favorites.

This format works pretty good for any interest. Are you into local cuisine? Well, think of your all-time favorite restaurant in town, a new one you’re really into, and something on the horizon you’re looking forward to.

5 Probing Questions

I don’t mean questions like, “What is the nature of love.” But more-so questions like, “Assuming you wouldn’t get seriously ill in either case, would you rather eat a 1/2 cup of your own shit, or drink four gallons of someone else’s urine?”

5 Tricks for Young Kids

In the past, someone might say to their 7-year-old, “This is Andy. And do you know what… he does magic!” And I would sort of brush aside what they were saying and try to get out of the situation. “Oh, no. Not really. I’m not that kind of magician. I don’t really do kid’s stuff.” What a total fucking turd I was. In my head I was like, “Bu-bu-but what if they see me do something for a kid and they don’t take my seriously!” Like, who cares, dork?

Now I’ll happily show a kid something. But I don’t bother pulling something from my regular repertoire. First, because something that good is usually not necessary for a kid. And second because I now consider it a good thing if I show someone’s kid a trick and the adults nearby underestimate what I can do based on it. That only makes what I may do for them in the future hit harder.

5 Pieces of Origami

I enjoy origami as a sort of meditative practice. I don’t retain a lot of the folds in my memory. But at any given time I’ll have five or so in my head that I can whip out for certain situations. I like to have two or three that are easy enough to teach, and then two or three that are impressive enough to make a nice little instant gift.

Bizarrely, one of the folds I’ve found people like learning the most (perhaps because I teach it to them in some circumstance where it comes in handy) is how to fold a paper cup.

5 Simple Games that Require No Special Apparatus

When you have some significant, unexpected time to kill, having a game you can play with just your words is generally appreciated by a fun crowd.

An example of such a game would be “What Am I Thinking” also known as “Mind Meld.” Two people say any random word/phrase they think of at the same time. Then they do it again, trying to find the word “between” the two words they named originally. They keep trying to find this “midpoint” word until they both say the same word at the same time.

---

Now, the goal of keeping a list of such things (and your categories would likely be different than mine) is not so you can constantly be cramming them into conversation. It’s so you have easy mental access to them, should the situation call for it.

It’s important to have some level of mastery of normal conversation first. You don’t want to be seen as someone who is relying on gimmicks to interact with people. Ideally you’ll come across as a good conversationalist, but also someone who “has the right tool for the right moment” to bring a different flavor to an interaction when it’s needed.

Monday Mailbag #50

I really like the way you give words and concrete examples to concepts that were under-explored or only understood intuitively. Since looking at my presentations in terms of “Imps” and “Buy-Ins” and so on, I’ve felt a much better understanding of how to craft a presentation and tweak it to get certain results. With that in mind, I’d really like you to expand on your Hitch concept from [last Monday’s] post. I feel like this could be a very useful way to examine effects and help decide which ones are worth putting the effort in to learn. —CB

The “Hitch” concept is in its early stages. So this will be the sort of thing that you’ll likely see evolve on this site over time, hopefully becoming more actionable, if possible. It came about after many years of breaking down tricks with non-magicians after having them watch a performance live or on video.

In theory, magic tricks should be pretty easy to judge. Does it fool people? Yes or no. How impossible is the purported effect? Very? Somewhat? Not very? Okay, so now I just need a “very impossible” effect that fools people, right?

What I found is that there are a lot impossible effects that fool people, that those people don’t seem to care about one way or the other. And before you say, “It’s all about presentation!” that’s not really what I’m talking about. You can remove the element of presentation altogether and you still see the phenomenon.

In testing, when talking to people about why they didn’t rate a trick highly, the answers aren’t usually, “It didn’t fool me,” or, “It wasn’t impossible enough.” The answers are things like, “I just thought it was weird when…,” or, “I just thought there was something funny about the box…,” or, “I didn’t understand why we had to…,” or, “I was unclear about….” Their issues rarely focused on some definitive, make-or-break, flaw in the routine. Instead they were focused on the moments that brought them out of flow of the trick.

Hitches are the moments that feel questionable, strange, unclear, odd, or suspicious. Any time the spectator’s mind feels one of these things, it’s a Hitch. For the purposes of connecting with an audience, you want your trick to have as few of these moments as possible.

Hitches can be in the actions of a trick: “Why did I write it down only for him to tear it up?”
Hitches can be in the props used: “That’s not what a real key looks like.”
Hitches can be in the patter: “What does it even mean to be the ‘leader ace’?”
Hitches can be in the premise of the effect: “Why would he make my card appear on an Oreo unless he had some trick way of making my card appear on an Oreo?”

That’s not all. Anything that takes the spectator’s mind off the journey of the trick is a Hitch.

“Wait… did I see the coin in his hand?”
”What is that thing supposed to even be?”
”Why do I have to write it down?”
”Why is his hand in that position?”
”Why can’t I choose any city?”
”Wait, what happened? I was looking at his other hand.”
”What does he mean this is ‘the most ambitious card’ in the deck?”
”Why do I have to add all these numbers together?”

These are all Hitch examples. None of these questions suggest a trick is ruined, or that it won’t fool people. But just assume that every questionable moment decreases a tricks impact by a certain percentage. You can prove this to yourself by just trying to picture the opposite. Can you imagine a magic trick with no questionable moments that wouldn’t be very strong?

That being said, it’s not really a worthwhile goal to think, “I’ll only do tricks with no Hitches!” because there aren’t really a ton of them that exist But it’s a good goal to try to limit them as much as possible, especially if your goal is to get a trick that worms its way into their mind long-term.

---

RE: CelebriKey (discussed in last Monday’s post)

Seems to me to be a lot of effort to make a trick that has such a small, unbelievable revelation. A trick where you have to peer closely at the end to understand it seems weak to me.

Why not have a box of Legos, put a handful into a container, have someone pick a superhero, and then shake the container? Dump out the Legos and they've formed into the superhero. —JH

Regarding your first point, I see where you’re coming from, but a small revelation isn’t necessarily a weak one (especially for a small audience). I’ve done a trick where the revelation was on a grain of rice, and that has gone over very well. But I do get what you mean, if the revelation is too small for the audience and they have to squint and say, “Oh yeah, that’s batman alright.” Then that is pretty weak. Which is probably why they chose to go with such an obvious molded Batman look on the end of the key. It makes the revelation a little more clear cut, but it also makes it a little confusing because it no longer looks like a key.

Regarding your second point, I think the question becomes “Why not” pretty much anything else. As I said in the original post, if you have a force of a superhero that can hold up to scrutiny, why would you use it to make that superhero appear on a key? (Unless, for some reason, the key was a component of the forcing procedure. Then you’d at least have a methodological reason for tying the two together.)

Toys, comic books, movies, video-games, a Diner Double Beef Batman Burger with Squeezy Cheesy Fries.

There are countless items with a more natural tie-in to Batman to use as a reveal. To play devil’s advocate, the people behind this trick would probably reply, “Yes, there are other options that make more sense, but how many of them can you carry around with you on your keyring?” (Well, a batman keychain for one.) But it’s a fair point, I just don’t see it as being a convincing enough argument to justify the trick.

If I had an excellent superhero force, my revelation would involve magically changing my underwear into Batman Underoos. Although it’s probably not a great idea for strolling work.

---

Another email about the CelbriKey effect.

Subject: CocKey

They really missed a trick there. Same gimmick, make it morph to a dick. I could sell a million. Most of them to you, I suspect. —RO

Good idea. But then you really need to update your keyhole with one of these…

---

Dear Jerxy: De-Transitioning

Dear Jerxy: You have often discussed how to transition a conversation into your performing some magic, but I’ve read less about the awkward problem of transitioning back. It seems prudent to have a “de-transition" already established for each trick. Otherwise, after you have drawn everyone’s attention to you, the conversation comes to an abrupt and awkward halt. Or worse, they get together and brainstorm about the trick and possibly solve it.

I’ve been discussing this with some magician friends and here are the basic techniques we have come up with.

1. Let people discuss the effect, while in response to questions one maintains the “unbelievable premise” in the Jerx mode of blurring the effect into the surrounding reality.

2. Take the lead in restarting the conversation; e.g., by having the effect “remind” you of something one of the other people in the group has experienced and asking them about that. (A list of techniques for this would be handy.)

3. Exit the stage temporarily: leave the room to get a drink or go to the restroom. By the time you return, the conversation will have changed.

4. Exit the stage completely: make the effect the last thing you do at that social gathering.

Do you have any other suggestions?

Signed,
The After-Magic-Peformance Approach X-aminer

Dear TAMPAX: This is a good subject for a question, but I don’t think I quite find myself in the situation you described that often, so I’m not sure I have a great answer for you.

But the question of what I do after a trick is a good one, and not one I’ve really considered too much until now. Here, I think, is the reason why I haven’t given it too much thought. It’s sort of like asking a centerfielder, “Where do you go when the ball is hit?” On one level, it’s an impossible question to answer specifically. He might run back towards the fence, he might run in, he might run to his left or he might run to his right. There’s no real way of knowing. The obvious answer is that he’s going to run to where the ball is hit.

When I’m showing someone a trick, and the trick comes to an end, I want to be like that centerfielder. I don’t want to have a plan for what I’m going to do. I want to be on the balls of my feet waiting to see where their reaction goes and then I go and meet them there.

Let’s get one thing out of the way first. What do you do if you do a trick and it’s met with indifference? What if I show someone a trick and they say, “Oh, cool. Are you ready to go to the movie now?” In that case, I would say, “Sure, yeah, let’s get going.” If someone responds in a way that suggests what they saw didn’t matter to them, I’m not going to try and convince them that it should matter to them. I’ll just let the moment pass.

But I have to be honest, this almost never happens to me. And that’s not because I’m such a brilliant magician that everything I do garners an amazing reaction. It’s just because I don’t bother showing magic too often to people who haven’t shown a significant amount of enthusiasm for seeing magic.

I’ve turned the entire magician/spectator dynamic around. I never feel like I’m being judged. I feel like I’m judging their reactions to see if they’re the sort of person I want to show things to in the future. Are they a good dance partner for this type of interaction?

Sure, sometimes I’m testing out a trick or a concept and I’m looking for their “judgment” in regards to whatever I’m testing out. But outside of that, their reactions are best used by me to cultivate an audience of people who are into magic the way I want to do it.

So if I get an indifferent reaction, it’s almost always on the first trick they’ve ever seen from me. And in that case, it’s not such a big deal because it’s always something fairly quick and low stakes.

Okay, but let’s talk about “de-transitioning” in general. To do that I want to remind you of the understanding I have with the people I perform for. They know what they’re seeing is a trick that has been dressed up to be a bit more immersive. And they get that I’m playing around with a certain amount of reality and a lot of fantasy. They may not know quite where reality and fantasy meet. But they know that if I demonstrate something insane, the appropriate response isn’t spending the rest of the night screaming, “What the fuck!” and shitting themselves. The appropriate response is maybe a few minutes of afterglow and then moving on to whatever else your time together holds.

I would say there are three primary responses I get when showing someone a magic trick.

Amazed - This comes in the form of a gasp, or laughter, or cursing, or a dazed look, or hitting me, or whatever the case may be.

Engaged - With my friends who are more theatrical or comedic, or just friends with “sillier” personalities, they may feel the amazement of the trick and then re-engage with the premise. So if we’re doing a trick that involves a voodoo doll of their ex-boyfriend, they will usually feel that initial reaction of amazement and after a little while of that, they may click back over into the world of the presentation. So, for example, they may pick up the voodoo doll and start flicking it in the crotch or something because that’s in line with the premise that there is a real connection between this doll and someone they don’t like.

Skeptical - After the surprise of the climax of a trick, they may being to question things. “Is that a normal deck?” “Can I look at that coin?” And so on.

There are probably other reactions as well, but these are the primary ones. And usually a spectator’s reaction will be some mixture of the three.

Now, just like the centerfielder, my instinct is to move in the direction of their reaction. Because what these reactions have in common is that they will fade over time. So it’s not an issue of “transitioning” out of the trick. For me it’s an issue of riding along the wave of their reaction.

How I Handle Each Reaction

Here’s how I ride out each reaction type. I’ll start with the easiest ones to explain.

Skeptical - If the audience is questioning certain elements and wants to examine things or ask about certain details of the trick, then I just go along with it. I generally don’t bother with a trick unless the objects in play that might demand scrutiny are examinable. So I’m happy to indulge their skepticism when it exists. I don’t change the subject, I don’t move onto the next trick. I’ve found that one of the best ways to get people to be less “method focused” in future tricks, is to let them burn out on searching for a method during an earlier trick. If a person is ONLY ever skeptical, then it’s usually not someone I would show too much magic to.

Engaged - I join back in with them. If they flick the voodoo dolls crotch, I’ll take it from them and bite the crotch and shake it like a dog’s chew toy. Essentially I’ll play along as long as they’re leading me to continue doing so. That’s going to be a few minutes at most. They’re not going to be like, “Let’s pretend there’s a psychic ghost here all night!” But as long as they want to hit the ball towards me, I’ll hit it back.

Amazed (or shocked, mystified, awed, etc.) - If they’re just sitting there, taking it all in and processing it and responding very positively towards the sense of not knowing what just happened, then I think what you generally want to do is not get in the way of that. Let them sit with the feeling.

Here is a the strategy I use:

If the trick has a premise where I’m the one behind the incredible thing they just saw—like, for example, if I just read their mind in some way—then I will sort of lean back and distract myself with some simple Rep. I’ll tell you why I do this. I think one of the most awkward things is where you’re like, “I just read your mind. Now I’m going to focus my attention on you and your reaction. Give me the validation which I so crave.”

I don’t want to inject myself into their reaction. I want them to feel whatever they feel. So I might just lean back and rub my temples a little bit or clench and unclench my jaw. That way, when they look to me, they don’t see someone who’s like, “Huh? Huh? Whaddya think? Pretty cool, huh?” Nor am I ignoring the thing that just happened. Instead, I’m subtly reacting in a way that is consistent with the premise. So if they’re really amazed, they don’t look over and see someone who is seeking praise. And they don’t see someone who is ignoring what just occurred. Instead they see someone still in the world where the amazing thing happened which directs them back towards their reaction to the trick.

If the trick has a premise where I’m supposedly not behind what it is we just saw, then I will mirror their amazement. I will sit back and process what we both just saw. Then, as I sense their amazement starting to fade, I will be the one who gets skeptical. I will be the one who starts asking questions, but all my questions will be designed to reinforce the strength of the trick. “Wait… wait. Did you shuffle the deck? You did? Hmmm. And that’s just a normal deck? There’s nothing special about it? Okay… shit… I have no clue then.”

So that is how I would ride the reaction out and let the moment gently pass, as opposed to actively trying to “de-transition” to something else.

Now, to be fair, in everything I’ve written here, I’ve sort of ignored the part of your question that implies I’m performing for a group of people. And that’s because I just don’t try to do stuff that is very emotionally-resonant, or super immersive, or intensely personal with a group of more than a couple people (except in rare situations where the group has been highly curated by me). I just don’t think it’s possible with a group.

With one or two people I can craft an experience that feels very personal and unique to us. With a group, my goal is just to show them something interesting or entertaining. And that situation rarely ends awkwardly because I make it clear that this is jut for fun, I’m not here to impress anyone, and I choose material that would be very difficult for a group to unravel unless someone there had a background in magic.

In large social situations I’m almost never like, “Gather round, everyone! The magician is here! Me, that is. I’m the magician. Pay attention to me” No. In those situations, if I’m performing, then it means I pulled a person or two aside a couple of times over the course of the evening and showed them something. From those “performances,” more people may come to me over the course of the night because they heard about something I did. And I will show those people something. That’s usually how I perform in a “group” setting.

Because of the nature of they type of stuff I perform, there is rarely a sense that everyone should gather around and watch me “perform” as a group. It has happened, and I’ve had fun with it. But it hasn’t happened enough for me to come up with a plan for when it does. So I can’t really answer your question in the way it was originally expressed. But perhaps you can extrapolate how I do handle the post-trick period in my situation and find a way to apply some elements to your own situation.