Help Wanted: What's the Worst Force You Can Think Of?

/

In this post I wrote about the concept of having a bad marked deck, and why you might want to create one in order to corrupt people’s understanding of what a marked deck is. I enjoy this type of thing—planting seeds for things you won’t harvest until some time has passed. If I ask people if they’ve ever seen a marked deck, most haven’t. And if I introduce the Bad Marked Deck to them, and they believe that to be what marked decks are like, I can then use a good marked deck in the future and—with any luck—they will dismiss the possibility of it being a marked deck because it’s not used in a manner that they would associate with the deck I’ve shown them.

The idea being that people already know about marked decks, so now I want to poison that knowledge in some way. It wouldn’t make sense to introduce a concept to them, and then try and undermine it. But if they already have heard about something, I want to make that thing seem more inadequate than it really is.

You’ll sometimes see this done with the concept of “palming.” Laypeople have already heard of palming so sometimes magicians will mention it in their presentations (such as with the Invisible Palm effect) and demonstrate it in a way that it seems like it wouldn’t fool anyone. That’s the sort of thing I’d like to do with every magical concept laypeople are familiar with.

(By the way, if you’re a supporter of this site, the Jerx Deck you’ll receive next year in your supporter package is going to be a bad marked deck. Not “funny” bad. But just overly-complicated bad.)

So now I’m thinking about ways to do that with card forcing because I’ve recently been doing a number of effects that start with me performing and explaining a shitty version of the trick and then following that up with a similar effect but with a completely different method. This structure seems to generate much stronger responses for me than just doing the better version in isolation. (For more details on this, see this post. Or, if you’re a supporter of the site, see the essay “Garden Pathing” in issue 2 of this year’s newsletter.)

Since I’ve been teaching a lot more crappy tricks, many of which require a force, I need to identify some bad forces that meet these criteria:

They fool people to the extent that it’s not completely obvious how the card was forced.
BUT
The selection process is unnatural/needlessly complicated in a way that makes it obvious this isn’t a truly “free” selection.
AND
Exposing the force wouldn’t reveal any useful deception techniques.

The first thing that came to mind was the 10-20 force, because, as it’s generally described, it’s fucking stupid. “Name a number between 10 and 20,” is no way to start off anything that’s supposed to feel free or random in any manner. At least not when you’re holding something with 52 options in your hand.

And, of course, and process that forces a number could then be used to force a card by counting down to that number in the deck.

But I’m still looking for some more bad forces. So if you know of any (or can create one), send me an email and let me know.

Combining exposure and weak methods is a powerful concept. Teaching them a method, even if it sucks, gives them that little dopamine hit of learning a secret. But it also takes them further away from the sort of methods I’m going to be using. Since they already know of the concept of card forcing, I want them to believe it amounts to literally forcing a card into someone’s hand from a spread (a la the classic force), or that it requires a very convoluted process. That way when they’re just cutting a deck, or touching a card freely, or stopping me while I deal—they’ll be less likely to even conceive those actions could be part of a force.

Monday Mailbag #60

/

Re: A Jerxian Breakthrough

The breakthrough you’ve discovered is called “honesty and consent.”

All the cool kids are trying it. —MW

Fair enough.

But more than “consent,” I think what I’m searching for in that type of interaction is understanding.

If I say, “Hey, do you want to see a magic trick?” And they say yes. Then I have their consent. But I don’t necessarily have their understanding of what I mean when I ask them if they want to see a magic trick. Because what I want from them is to know that when I show them a trick it might involve a little more involvement and suspension of disbelief than what they may be imagining.

If I ask them if they want to see a trick and they consent and I do a gambling demonstration, I think that works out well.

If I ask them if they want to see a trick and they consent and I do the Ocean’s Eleven version of Spectator Cuts the Aces from this post, then they’re going to be weirded out, because that’s not their understanding of how a magic trick is framed.

The “breakthrough” I had was that by telling them a story about a different performance, or something else I was working on, I could then indirectly familiarize them with the type of of magic I like to perform. And this would allow me to get their “consent” to seeing that type of magic without having to be a real dork about it and be, like, “So, it’s a magic trick. But I often embed it in a kind of fictional interaction. And I don’t want you to be there thinking, ‘That’s not a special kind of gum. That’s just ordinary gum!’ I just want you to try and engage with the story of this special gum. I’m not trying to convince you the gum is actually special. That’s just the story. Got it? Sign here if you consent to seeing such a trick.”

Hey Andy,

How about doing the Invisible Deck as a trick that a mysterious stranger apparently does for you via post?

That way you can secretly control the outcome for the spectator - whilst giving the credit to the mysterious magician friend.—JM

It’s a good idea, but as someone who has done a lot of faux “third party” magic tricks (where someone else outside of myself and the participant is apparently controlling the magic), I know that they have to end examinable. In these types of presentations its incumbent on you to act like a real spectator. Otherwise it just comes off as a fake-y presentation.

So at the end of the Invisible Deck you’d want to be able to look over the deck just to search for some clue in regards to how it was done. Obviously if you’re using the standard Invisible Deck, that wouldn’t be possible.

But one of the benefits of using a “third-party” presentation is that it can be easier to switch things and end clean. There are a couple reasons why it’s easier:

  1. Because you’re not playing the part of the magician, there’s going to be a little less heat on you.

  2. You can add in instructions from “the magician” that give you the time and opportunity to do switches, and you don’t have to justify your actions because you’re just following instructions.

Here’s what I mean. If you sent yourself an Invisible Deck in the mail and wrote instructions from “the magician” who sent it to you and the instructions said. “One of you should name any card in the deck. The other person should spread through the deck and remove the one card I reversed in this deck before I sent it to you. Don’t look at it just yet. Have whichever of you named the card hold onto it.” If, at this point in the instructions, it said to walk over to a mirror or close your eyes and repeat some phrase or to switch seats or whatever, that’s all the time you would need to do a deck switch for a normal deck.

I would recommend a deck switch for a deck whose back doesn’t match the back of the invisible deck for a few reasons. First, because it adds a Brainwave type of effect to the interaction. Second, it prevents the notion that maybe you were in on it and you just flipped over the card they named and they weren’t paying close enough attention to notice. And third it leaves you completely clean at the end.

If you don’t use a different color deck, then you end up with a duplicate of whatever card they named. Maybe it’s unlikely to get noticed, but it’s still there. If you do use a different colored deck, then even though there is another one of the named card in the deck, that can make sense if the trick is that the magician took a card from a blue deck and reversed it and stuck it into a red deck before mailing it off. There would be no discrepancy if that was the premise.

But yeah, using an ID in this way is definitely do-able because you can be so clean with it. And that’s what third-party magic requires.

For Christmas you could wrap up the ID and put a bow on it and send it to your house. Apparently from your “magician friend.” And this trick is his “gift” to you (or you and your family).

Dustings #58

/

I once had an idea for a dating site where you would upload the least flattering pictures of yourself. Maybe there would be some sort of vetting by people who worked on the site to make sure these are truly bad pictures of you. Otherwise the site would operate like a normal dating site. Except when you get to the point where you finally meet your match in person and you think, “Oh, wow! What a pleasant surprise!”

I’ve always done my best to set low expectations with people. If you tell people you’re a great worker, or a great cook, or a great lover, or whatever—that might get your foot in the door (or penis in the vagina)—but then you have to put your actual abilities up against the power of their imagination. And that’s a battle you can almost never win.

This phenomenon plays out in magic ads as well.

Take this trick, SOLID. I watched the video and at first I thought, “A borrowed, signed key penetrates into a can or bottle? That sounds amazing.” Immediately my mind was churning over the possibilities.

Then I watched a little more and did a little reading and realized the key isn’t borrowed. It’s your own key. And it’s a key that easily fits into the can. And you start the effect by just openly putting the key in the can and then “removing” it. Does this make it a bad trick? Not necessarily. But it just makes it not the trick I originally was hoping for.

Now, had the ad copy started, “You pull out your keyring and remove a small key,” they probably would have sold a copy to me. No, I wouldn’t have been initially as interested as I was when I thought it was a regular-sized borrowed key, but at least my interest wouldn’t have waned the more I learned about the trick. I would have been focused on the positives of the trick rather than where it didn’t live up to my expectations.

Is this good marketing advice? No, probably not. But I’m mentioning it now because if and when I start releasing products in the future, I’m going to use this approach. I’m going to establish the limitations and the weak spots first and then express what makes the trick worth it despite those factors.

Love to see such a genuine excited reaction to a magic performance…

This trick teaches the very important lesson that bullying isn’t all that bad because the effects of bullying can be undone with the snap of your fingers. Wait… that can’t possibly be the message, can it?

Hmm…

Well, I can’t find any other lesson to be learned here.

The sad thing is, even if you can solve your bullying problems with magic, you still have parents that sent you to school with a lunch consisting of a juice box, a mandarin orange, and cookies. Jesus, mom, get the kid some goddamn protein. No wonder he’s getting bullied. He can’t build any muscle mass!

A Jerxian Breakthrough

/

There’s a certain style of magic I write about frequently here that I describe as “immersive fiction” or the “Romantic Adventure” performance style. That’s where the goal is for the trick to feel less like a demonstration and more like an (obviously) fictional story that they are taking a part in. In a previous post I described this as a direction that magic might evolve towards in the future (for certain types of performers).

I wrote:

I suspect magic will be seen as a form of experiential storytelling. Instead of being a one person exhibition (like being a juggler or ventriloquist) it will be more aligned with things like escape rooms, haunted houses, or parlour games. I think magic won't be seen as something you do, but an experience you create. The best magicians will be those who craft the best immersive stories for people.

The issue with this is that it’s kind of an unusual way to present magic. And while I find it to be wildly more enjoyable for people to experience than a traditional “demonstration of my magic skills,” it’s also something they’re not used to. There’s a learning curve involved when it comes to enjoying this sort of performance because it doesn’t really work well if the spectator has the typical mindset people often approach magic with: “You’re going to try and fool me, and my goal is to try and figure it out.” Having their guard up means they’re not appreciating the story because they’re questioning it. That’s not an attitude that helps them get immersed in what you’re showing them. “Wait… your aunt wasn’t a gypsy. I’ve met your aunts.” That’s not the vibe you want them to have.

The ideal mindset I want my spectators to have is, “This story is meant to be fictional, so I can just let myself get lost in it without questioning things. And I’m not going to figure out the magic no matter how hard I try, so I might as well sit back and enjoy it.”

That’s the “ideal,” mind you. I’m not saying everyone I perform for has this mindset.

The hard part of this style of magic is really getting people somewhere near that point. Magic—especially amateur magic—is almost defined by the “challenge” of it. So coming at it from a different perspective can be difficult for people.

For a long time, the only method I had in my arsenal to get people prepared for this type of performance was to slowly introduce it to them over the course of many performances. The post I’ve linked to the most on this site is this Bedrock post where I talk, step by step, about how I go about doing that. It’s a long process, but it’s an enjoyable one for me.

But now I’ve found a shortcut to get people up to speed on what I’m going for much faster.

This was really a breakthrough for me, and it’s so obvious and stupid that it shouldn’t have been, but it is.

Here’s my big breakthrough. Here’s how I get people to expect a different type of magic experience…

I tell them.

I just tell them that I make up stories to go along with the tricks, or to give the tricks the feeling of a weird experience or something like that.

This doesn’t get them prepared to sit through a 90 minute immersive trick. But it does get them to used to the idea that we both know this is meant to be a fictional little bit of entertainment, and not to get too worked up about trying to “catch me” when the story is unfolding.

I stumbled over this when I pulled out the trick Kids Kards for the first time in a while. Someone I didn’t know too well was at my place and I told her something truthful. I said, “Oh, this is a trick I used to do a lot but I stopped doing it. I would tell people this story about me dating this elementary school teacher and how I would visit the classroom and do a trick every now and again. And at the end of the year the kids made me this deck of cards. And blah, blah, blah. But the problem was, people were really believing the story. And they were getting emotionally invested in these kids and this relationship. And I didn’t want that. I was just trying to show them something fun. Here, I’ll show you.”

Then I went into the trick with my old presentation. And she was immediately onboard. Because she knew it was a made-up story, she could just let herself go along with it. She didn’t have to question whether I believed it or whether I wanted her to believe it. She could just enjoy it. And then, later in the evening when I went into another trick, she again instantly realized what the situation was. I didn’t have to explain to her again what the deal was, because I had already established the type of thing to expect.

And I’ve had similar success with other people. I just have to say something, anything really, that lets them understand that I like to use magic to create the feeling of going through some weird experience. That these stories are intended to be fictional and just for their enjoyment.

I would say that I still prefer taking the long way to get to this point and slowly getting them accustomed to this style of performance. But if I want to move that process along, or if I’m not going to have that much time with the person, this technique allows me to get into some more interesting performances, without freaking them out, and without the intermediary steps along the way

Monday Mailbag #59

/

You’ve come up with a bunch of different terminology in your time writing this site (Imps, Reps, etc.). I think you need a word for a trick that magicians are really excited for but laymen care much less about. And for that I would go with “Cog.”

This is based on the Cognito App which all of my magic friends have been amazed by, but the laypeople I perform for have been underwhelmed by. It doesn’t get bad reactions, but it rarely gets great reactions for me either, except from other magicians. I’ve even had some laypeople suss out the general idea of the binary principle. Not down to the mathematics but the idea that knowing which photos they say yes to would allow you to know which card they’re thinking of.

Do you have any ideas on how to bring the focus off the phone when using the Cognito App? — LH

No, I don’t, I’m afraid. As I said when I originally talked about this app, the issue I see with it is that it requires a lot of energy to be focused on the phone. To pull that energy off the phone and make it about something real between the people taking part in the interaction… that’s going to be hard.

The issue with using the app to find out what someone is thinking is that it requires a lot of, “Is your card in this picture? Is it in this picture? Is it in this picture? Is it in this picture?” This is the dull, uninteresting part so people try to rush through it. Understandably. But if you rush through the dull, uninteresting part, you’re suggesting to the spectator that this is actually the important part (method wise). If it wasn’t important, you wouldn’t include it, because it’s dull and uninteresting.

So, counterintuitively, what you might want to try is to focus more time on this part of the process. By focusing more time on it, and adding some creative elements to it, you can make it feel like more of a theatrical necessity rather than a methodological necessity. I don’t know if that would work, but that’s what I would try.

Other that that, I will again say that there are likely to be very few really cohesive plots and premises that make a ton of sense with this app (and the process of looking through multiple photos). It’s probably a better use of your time to identify the two or three premises that work really well, rather than trying to use it to solve many magic problems. For example, is this ACAAN procedure using the app (which involves a meaningless, unrelated “observation test,” and a meaningless, unrelated “estimation test,” before getting to the ACAAN part) a step forward in ACAAN methodology? In my opinion, no. You can say, “Yes, but the spectator never has to name their card!” Okay, but they have to do a bunch of other junk you don’t have to do with other ACAANs. And I’m not sure the trade-off is worth it. That, I feel, is an example of using the app for the sake of the app, not because it really makes for a better trick.

Finally, on the subject of this app, supporter Jonathan FC wrote the following which I think might have some merit:

I think it could also be used with your transgressive anagram philosophy.

By this i mean, use the cognito procedure, like a failed attempt of mind reading. Ditch it. And then once you have the peek you can go for a more interesting presentation.

Will you be buying your boy Josh’s new matching deck effect? If so, will you tell the story of his parents meeting as it was the story of your parents meeting? —AS

No, I won’t be getting that trick. I think it’s a great trick for certain performance situations, and I enjoy the story Josh tells with it. And I have no doubt a lot of people will get a lot out of it. My performance style is too casual for it. And my friends are the type who really want to prod the mystery to see if it’s completely airtight and they would definitely look at the spread of cards at the end to make sure everything was copacetic, and you can’t really have that. Plus I have my own deck matching effect I already do.

But if you are going to do the effect in a situation where people don’t know you, you can probably steal Josh’s story and not have to worry about not getting away with it.

If you don’t want to take that exact story, you can easily create something similar. All you need to do is come up with some arbitrary circumstances and plug those into the story. “If his shoelace hadn’t broke, he wouldn’t have had to stop at the store,” blah, blah. If you can’t plug in your own details that you create into that format, then you’re close to braindead. Go ahead and just steal the story of how Josh’s parents met, because your parents did have any kids that lived, apparently.

Your post about how Mentalists reveal information was very timely. The previous week, at an Elder’s meeting, a performer did a routine with this type of finish, where you reveal what you have read in the person’s mind. And my comments to him were all about the reveal, and your post made the rounds and produced lots of good thinking. So thanks.

I remember when I worked on the staff of a Sitcom, we talked about beats. Basically this meant any moment where a character has any emotional reaction. Big or small, happy or sad, annoyed or pleased. Anything.

One main goal of reviewing the script this way was to make sure that we did not repeat a beat, unless it was to specifically set up something based on the repeat. But if character A displays some annoyance at something character B did, and they repeat it, it can not be the same annoyance. It has to be bigger, or the target has to be slightly different, but it has to be moving in some direction.

This was what I didn’t like about that performer’s presentation. He got a fact, then he got another one, then he got another one, until he was done. Each moment was impossible, but they were all exactly the same beat.

So I think the reveal has to have its own arc. It has to go somewhere.

I find thinking about “beats” like this is a useful way to improve these sections.

And not just in mentalism. How many ace assemblies or coins across routines have the exact same beat three times in a row? —PM

Yes, good points here.

I don’t mind too much if the “beats” are the same, so long as that’s done to set a pattern that is somehow broken in the climax of the trick. But yeah, usually it’s just, “This coin went from one hand to the other. Then this one did. And this one did. And also this one did. The end.”

However, for me, the even bigger sin—going back to the idea of mentalism reveals—is when there’s just a straight line between each reveal and the ending. It just makes for a dull story with no climax.

It would be like if you were watching a mystery movie or reading a mystery novel and halfway in the detective determines the killer is a man, then a little while later that the killer is in the same neighborhood, and then that the killer lives in the house next door. If that’s how the book progresses it’s not going to be very interesting at the end when he’s like, “And the killer is… the neighbor!” Like yeah, we know.

However if the detective remains silent throughout the book, or he appears to be grasping at straws, or if he’s clearly on the wrong path, then it becomes interesting when the pieces fall into place at the climax. That’s the approach I was recommending in that post.

Dustings #57

/

Remember when Ellusionist used to have big black Friday events and have a bunch of releases and give away wristbands so the bully’s at school would more easily be able to identify who to give wedgies to? What happened to that?

Now look how their black Friday email starts…

Gee, thanks, Ellusionist.

I like to imagine some guy reading this email and then shamefully putting away his phone that he’s been using while the family says grace before dinner. You know…. they’re right, he thinks. He stands up. “Honey, I’ve been… distant. But all that’s going to change. Today what I’m most thankful for is my family, and a little magic company that puts people over profits. A company whose wise words turned my heart from something that was as dark and cold as an Ellusionist Legacy V2 Black Tiger Deck into something as bright and incandescent as a Ellusionist Pyro Mini Fireshooter. Blessings to Ellusionist as well as all of you, my family and friends. Let’s do ninja.”

This video is a good demonstration of bad misdirection. The misdirection “works” in the sense that it fools the other person in the moment, but when the “effect” happens, they understand they were misdirected. Now, I shouldn’t really call this bad misdirection. This is actually fine for routines that are about misdirection, e.g., card under glass or something like that.

This type of thing is what I call “misdirection of the eyes.” Misdirection of the eyes is good for generating surprise.

What this type of misdirection doesn’t work for is when you’re trying to create a longer-lasting magical moment. If you twirl your wand and people look at it and they look back to find a ball on the table. They don’t think, “That ball magically appeared!” They think, “Whoa there’s a ball!… hmm… Oh, I guess that’s why he was twirling the wand with the other hand.” They may not think that so plainly, but that’s kind of an inherent understanding. If the ball had magically appeared, the last thing you would have done was draw their attention away from where it was appearing.

The type of misdirection that I think works better for creating a more magical feeling is misdirection of the mind. You can find more about this concept in this post from four years ago.

Here’s one way you could use the Name-List Victim framework from Wednesday’s post if you regularly visit casinos.

While at the casino you say, “Do you have $5 to invest in something interesting? I’ve been having recurring dreams for the past … I don’t know…. over two years. And in the dream I’m at the casino with a friend—a different friend each time I have the dream— and they put a $5 chip down on a number in roulette. It’s pretty much a nothing dream. Nothing really interesting happens—they don’t win or lose, I just see them bet. But then one time I was here with my ex and she put her money down on the same number I remembered her putting it on in my dream. I thought it was a coincidence. But then it happened with another friend. At least I think it did, I wasn’t keeping track of the dreams at that point, but I’m pretty sure he nailed the same number. So I started keeping track. I keep a list on my phone and update it after each time I have the dream. The dreams aren’t always accurate, but they’re way more accurate than they should be. I had a dream about you last month and we were here in this casino. Would you mind placing a $5 bet on any number? I want to see if it worked again. I’d pay for it myself, but it is almost never accurate if the person places the bet with my money.”

They place the bet, and while the wheel is still turning you, go to your notes app and show them that they indeed placed the bet on the same number at which their name appears.

Not only is this a decent trick, but imagine they win that bet. If you go to casinos often and do this trick enough, it’s bound to happen. How long before their memory of the trick is, “We went to the casino and he told me to put the bet on 15 and in the next spin I won!”

(You might want to openly dissuade them from picking 0/00, because there is no “zero” in a DFB list. Or you can just chance it.)

Name-List Victims

/

I received an email from supporter Philip S. recently describing a use for the DFB app. DFB is an app that allows you to force anything at a numbered spot on a list in your notes app. (If that’s not clear enough, look it up.)

Philip’s email started:

I came up with a use for DFB that has got some pretty nice reactions. It puts a few different Jerxian concepts to use, so I wanted to share it with you.

Philip has allowed me to share that trick with you today. There’s a part of this trick that I think makes it particularly interesting and intriguing to people. (The most “Jerxian” part of the trick, in my opinion.)

But before we get to that part I need to set the stage. Don’t give up on the idea before then.

The Basic Effect

This is not the interesting part. This is the effect in its most basic form.

You ask someone to think of a number between 1 and 100 (or some upper-limit lower than 100).

They name a number—16 for example—you open up a list on your phone of your friend’s names, and at 16 is the name of the person who named the number.

(It doesn’t have to be just your actual friends’ names. You can make up some names. If it was all your “real” friends the number would be capped at what… six or something? Like if you count your mom as a friend.)

So this is a fine trick. Not earth-shattering. Who knows, it might get a better response in its basic form than I imagine. But at the very least it would be fine.

The Presentation

Again, this isn’t the interesting part just yet. (Well, it’s as interesting as you make it.)

Rather than just asking for a “random” number, it’s going to be much more compelling if that number has some meaning to it. There’s really no limit to the ways you could do this.

Here was Philip’s original idea.

Start with some Imp that could make sense as a psych-force. You then ask them to close their eyes, and imagine they're at the top of spiral staircase, so they can't see how far down it goes. You then have them count the steps until they get to the bottom, then have them tell you the number of steps there were.

You then explain the concept of a psychological force, and that you've been practicing methods for doing it. You show them your notes app, where you have a note titled "Psych force practice". It's a numbered list of names […] And of course, their name is at the number they named.

I like that. The spiral staircase imagery works well with the concept of delving deep into their mind.

But again, it can really be any reason to have them name a number.

“I’ve become very good at guessing my friends’ least lucky numbers. And I had a flash of insight of what yours might be the other day. If you had to pick a least lucky number between 1 and 100, what would yours be?” And then you go on to open a list of “Friends’ least lucky numbers.” Or whatever.

So come up with some way to get a number that’s slightly more exciting than “think of a random number,” and you’re good to go.

The Exciting Part

Here’s the part I really like. Let me go back and reprint Philips description of his trick unedited this time.

You then explain the concept of a psychological force, and that you've been practicing methods for doing it. You show them your notes app, where you have a note titled "Psych force practice". It's a numbered list of names--some have green check marks next to them (indicating you succeeded for that number/person) and some have red X's (indicating you tried and failed that time), and others have question marks. And of course, their name is at the number they named, and you delete the '?' next to their name and replace it with a green box.

As I wrote back to Philip:

The addition of the check marks, Xs, and question marks really takes this to the next level of what would otherwise just be a good but unremarkable trick.

Since the implication is that you have certain numbers you think will work for certain people, it may make sense that many of the numbers say "none" or "blank" or "N/A" or something. And maybe some have more than one person's name.

As Philip responded in his email back to me, setting up the list in this way makes it look much more like some sort of legitimate practice log, than if it was just a list of 100 names.

I particularly love that moment in Philip’s ides where you change the person’s ❓to a ✅. That’s a perfect little cherry on top of the effect.

You see what we’re doing, yes? In the Jerx vernacular, this is a Rep. Something that happens after the climax of an effect that adds to the world the effect lives in.

This takes what would be a very concentrated magic moment and then bukkake’s it outwards over (apparently) a bunch of different people and places and times in the past and (presumably) the future. This is a list of people that have been involved, and there’s been successes and failures and others you have yet to get to. This isn’t just a one-time thing. (With most effects you would want them to feel like a one-time, special thing. But this effect is improved by making it feel like there is a history to it.) This is an on-going story of a magical phenomena that they are, at this point, passing through.

These are the sorts of things that I’ve found cause an effect to really worm its way into people’s minds. They don’t necessarily affect the intensity of the initial reaction. They affect the duration.

Compare this to, say, using DFB to force Superman and the 4 of Clubs, and then turning around your prediction to show Superman holding the 4 of Clubs. Okay. I’m sure that gets a fine initial response. “Neat! That’s Superman and the 4 of Clubs.” But there’s really just a thud to that type of effect. “Here’s a random image of random elements with no connection to anything else. From some random lists that no normal human would ever have on their phone.” It’s the sort of thing that’s going to be of limited staying power. And there’s nothing really wrong with that. A magic trick can just be a neat moment. But if you have more “Jerxian” aims with your tricks, you might want to consider a trick using this format.

Thanks to Philip S. for sending along the original idea to me and allowing me to share it with you.