Dustings #61

Everybody and their sister has been sending me this video of Mark Lemon at Blackpool. (You need to be familiar with Ellusionist’s goofy Black Ops Watch to really “get” the joke as intended.) It’s nicely done which is something I rarely say about anyone in magic trying to be funny.

---

Sometimes when I first meet someone and they’re telling me about what they do for a living, I like to say:

“Oh, how much money do you make?”

I say it real innocent like. That moment where they’re trying to figure out if I’m serious is usually good for a laugh.

Along the same lines, I was recently wondering how much money you can make creating viral Facebook videos. No real reason, I was just curious. So I sent an email to Rick Lax and said, “Hey, how much money do you make?” Unsurprisingly, he didn’t want to give an exact number. But he did give this information which potential viral video creators may find motivating…

We post videos on Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram, and sometimes YouTube.
A bad video makes nothing.
A fine video makes $1-$100.
A good video makes $100-$10,000.
A great video makes $10,000-$300,000.

Now, obviously he means a great performing video. Not a video that is, like, “great” artistically or something.

But there you go. Now you see what’s possible. I think the best route to take is to create one great video and make $300,000. But that’s maybe too lofty a goal. My plan is to make 300,000 fine videos, which I think is more doable for me.

---

I assumed this was widely understood, but it came up in a discussion with someone recently and they seemed to not know this:

If a trick is advertised as “great for social media,” that’s their way of saying, “this looks like shit or is completely unworkable in the real world.”

It would be like if I said, “Hey, I’ve got this amazing girl I want you to meet. And guess what? She looks good in pictures!” That’s your clue that she’s probably a bit of a disaster in real life.

---

So this is pretty cool! This is a sneak peek at some footage from an upcoming Penn & Teller documentary. This clip captures an early meeting between Joey Teller and Penn (née Norman) Jillette. In fact it documents the first time the subject of magic came up between them! It’s crazy that this was caught on tape and that it has survived all these years.

I’m not sure when exactly this piece of footage was recorded. My understanding is that it comes from a little bit after the time when Teller was a detective in Beverly Hills. But quite a bit before the time he was married to the ex-wife of the guy who accidentally killed santa, put on his suit, and therefore inadvertently became subject to a legal technicality known as “The Santa Clause.”

---

Is there a sexier line in magic literature than this one from page 40 of Sam Sharpe’s Neo Magic?

Hell yeah. This sexy-ass book got me feeling some kind of way.

My Top Three Variables for Differentiating the Magic Experience

The professional is limited in the ways they can differentiate their performances. If you’re performing at the Magic Castle after David Regal, and you wanted to differentiate yourself from what he did. Then you might decide not to do any card tricks (because he frequently does those) or you might decide not to do any rejected jokes from an old According to Jim script (because he always does those).

You might be so scared of being compared to him that you come up with some weird “Rapping Magician” character.

I’m Magic Tommy and I’m here to say
I’m going to link these Chinese rings in a magical way

But no matter what you do, both experiences (your performance and his) will feel similar in a significant way to the audience because in both situations they will be sitting in a small theater watching a magic show.

As an amateur magician performing in social situations, we have a much greater set of tools we can exploit to make the experience of seeing a trick feel different for our spectators.

Usually when we talk about differentiating our performances, the first thing that comes to mind is changing up the type of material we do. Maybe we do a card trick one time, sponge balls the next, a mentalism trick, a gambling trick, etc.

“Type of material” feels like the most obvious variable to change up. But I think it’s also one of the least effective at generating a different experience for the spectator.

Here are my top three variables for creating magic experiences that feel distinct from one another.

Location

If I wanted to create five diverse memorable experiences with magic tricks and I was given these two options:

Option 1

Perform these five tricks for someone on different occasions at my dining room table:

1. Spoon bending

2. Color-changing knives

3. Coins thru table

4. $100 Bill switch

5. Linking safety-pins

Option 2

Perform a card trick for someone in these locations:

1. In front of a fireplace

2. On a picnic

3. While going through a car wash

4. In a phone booth

5. In bed

I would choose option 2 100% of the time as being the option that would generate stronger memories.

Someone will say, “Okay, so they might have more distinct memories of the environment in which the tricks occurred, but not the tricks themselves.”

Well, yes and no. Ideally the environment will be tied to the trick in some way. Maybe we’re burning a card if I’m performing in front of a fireplace. Or maybe we’re calling a random stranger from the phonebook to have them name any card in the deck if we’re in a phone booth.

But even if it was just five random card tricks in five different locations, I would still choose that over five varied tricks in the same location if my goal was to generate lasting memories of the experience of the performance.

Of course, this is a false dichotomy. You can change up your location and the type of material as well. I’m just saying if I could only change one or the other, I would prioritize location over material.

Time

If you write a word down and I read your mind, the experience of the trick is wildly different if I do it in 5 seconds, 5 minutes, 5 hours, or 5 days.

I think amateurs don’t nearly take enough advantage of the opportunity they have to present magic that lasts different lengths of time. Instead, almost everything they do is, like, 1-4 minutes.

Now, a two hour trick doesn’t mean they’re actually involved with watching a trick for two hours. You can do that, and I’ve done it in the past. But rarely. Usually it will be something that starts at a given point, and then I come back to it one or more times and then it concludes later on in the evening.

Of course, the implication should be that there’s some reason it’s taking so long, not that you’re just dragging things out.

Spectator’s Role

This is probably my favorite variable to play around with. What is the spectator’s role in the interaction? What is the relationship between you, them, and the thing they’re seeing? In a stage show, the role is almost always the same. They’re the spectator and the magician is the performer demonstrating something for their entertainment.

But in amateur magic, they can have many different roles and relationships to the effect.

They can be the spectator watching a magic trick.

They can be the “magician,” somehow demonstrating a magic ability they didn’t know they had.

They can be a student learning a trick from you.

They can be a spectator along with you to some other third-party magician (who may or may not actually exist).

They can be someone you’ve asked to help with a trick you’re working on.

They can be someone you’ve asked to critique a trick you’re working on.

They can be someone who is playing a game with you.

They can be someone taking part in a ritual with you.

They can be someone helping you test a concept or conduct an experiment.

They can be someone you’ve asked to join you on some mini-adventure into the unknown.

They can literally be playing a different role, e.g., “Hey, I have this trick I’m supposed to show my nephew’s class next week. Would you help me out by pretending to be an 8-year old?”

Playing around with these variables (and others) is the best way I’ve found to keep my performances fresh and interesting to the people I perform for regularly.

Monday Mailbag #62

Lately, anytime I'm tempted to buy the latest and greatest trick or prop, I show the trailer or a performance video to laymen that I know and get their opinions on it. Mainly to see if they can distinguish the method right away.

The latest example is "Thin Air" by Ignacio Lopez

Every person I showed came to the instant conclusion that there's a flap. One person pointed out in the trailer that he lowers one corner but picks up on the corner beneath it. I think this is a great standard to implement on deciding what to buy. This should be the last step in "The Jerx Purchasing Principle".... Show to at least 3 laymen... —CH

Yes, this is the purpose of the Virtual Focus Group, to get demos in front of laypeople. I sent this one out to a half-dozen people and all of their “best guesses” involved there being something going on with the silk. Even though I had edited the demo down to just one effect (so they weren’t seeing the silk in action over and over again).

When used as an appearance or a vanish, this is the sort of trick that might look "magical,” but won’t be very fooling. Usually I’m concerned about the inverse of this. A boring card effect, for example, that might fool people but doesn’t seem very magical. Here I think you have the opposite. Seeing something appear or disappear will give a little magical thrill, but there’s just too obvious an explanation of where the thing came from or went. So you just have the “Surprise” reaction, and then it quickly fades. (The Surprise Fizzle.)

That being said, I think it becomes less obvious when using this prop for an invisible switch. For example, having a borrowed dollar bill folded up and covered with the silk and then you divine its serial number. But I feel like even in that situation the use of the silk itself will raise eyebrows. It’s going to look out of place in most situations that aren’t your Magic Castle set, or something along those lines.

If I had to try and jam this prop into a more casual setting, maybe I’d have a small brass bowl wrapped in the silk or sitting on it in some sort of Wonder Room area of my house. Then I’d go through some ritual where something gets secretly written down on a piece of paper which is folded up, that paper gets burned in the bowl, and then at some point later in the night, that word, or name, or object that was written on the paper, manifests itself in some manner.

In that case I’d have to come up with the choreography for when/why the billet is placed on the silk and covered. If I could come up with something that makes sense, then the benefit of this—over just manually switching and burning a dummy billet—is that I can claim to “never touch it.” Then, of course, their actual billet would just be hidden in the silk for me to get later in the evening and set it up so their word appears in the steam on the bathroom mirror during their shower or whatever.

---

Playing cards are ubiquitous, but playing games with playing cards is sort of disappearing--except with old guys like me. But the proliferation of magicians who whip out a deck of cards is enormous (Larry Haas has published the final two books of Eugene Burger's magic; he tells me that the penultimate book did okay, but the final one is flying off the shelves because it is all card magic--magicians love cards).

So here's the thing. Even if we notice a pack of playing cards in someone's silverware drawer--I don't know why she keeps them there--and say, hey, I want to try something, the immediate thought is always "magic trick." Because, what? You're going to show them a variation of Hearts? I know that if our casual friends know we do magic, this isn't really a problem, but I know you also approach strangers in coffee shops.

So my question is--do you ever whip out a deck of cards in such settings [and if so, how]? I suspect that the "can you help me with this? I'm working on something," might work, but I have not done that [yet].

I don’t often bring out a deck of cards and show something to a complete stranger in a setting like a coffee shop. At least I don’t spring it on them just out of the blue. If it’s going to happen then it’s likely to happen because the subject of magic (or gambling or psychology or something) comes up in conversation while talking to them—because I’m talking about my interests, or something I was doing the other day. Once that subject comes up, it’s very likely they’re going to latch onto it because that’s what people do. At least people who are interested in talking to you. So once they take the bait, it’s easy to say, “Oh yeah… actually, there’s something I’ve been working on. Could I get your help with it?” And then I might remove some cards from my computer bag. So that’s how I would get to that point. That’s not the first thing I say to them, it’s the thing that links the discussion we’re already having to the trick.

Now, I also happen to be in a unique situation where I can go into any of a dozen coffee shops around me and there is an 80% chance that one of the regular customers or employees has seen me do something in the past and knows that I’m always “working on” something so it’s very likely they’re going to ask if I have anything new I’m playing around with. This is one of the benefits of being the world’s only professional amateur magician. I’ve created a whole bunch of locations I can go to where I see people regularly enough for them to know who I am and what I’m into, but infrequently enough that they aren’t burnt out on seeing “something weird” or “something interesting” or “a new trick I was reading about.”

Now, let’s say you’re out at a public place where you don’t know anyone. And for some reason you’re desperate to show someone a particular card trick. Here are two methods you can use to approach someone sitting next to you without saying, “Can I show you a trick?”

Both of these methods rely on making that person feel helpful in a concrete way. If you just say, “Do me a favor, watch me do a magic trick.” That’s almost going to feel like, “Do me a favor, give me some validation.” Because that’s what it would feel like if someone offered to “entertain” you out of the blue, in any situation really.

So here are a couple of tactics you can use. One for a more procedural trick, and one for a visual trick.

Procedural

Have your deck of cards out and a notebook. Do some cutting and dealing or some actions similar to what your trick entails. And every now and then make a note in your notebook (or on your laptop if you have that). Do this for 5-10 minutes or so as you drink your coffee. A couple of times, mutter under your breath, “What the heck?” Or, “Hmmm… wait a sec” Or something like that. Don’t be overly theatrical with it.

At some point, turn to the person next to you and say, “Excuse me. Could I get your help with something? It will only take a second—I just need someone else’s input because I think I’ve looked at this too much myself.” Or whatever. You’re not saying, “Can I show you something?” Or, “Would you like to see something?” Instead you’re asking for their help. And this works because, generally, people like to be helpful. Now you go through the trick with them. You may say it’s “a trick” you’re working on, or you may say it’s something else, “I’m testing some blackjack probabilities” or whatever, I don’t know. It’s going to depend on what your trick is.

So you walk through the trick with no presentation. And at the end you reach the climax of the trick and you turn over the top four cards to show the four aces (for example). You don’t say, “ta-daa!” You just go back to your notebook and make a couple more notes and shake your head and mutter, “I…just…don’t…get…it.” You thank them for their help and then turn back to your own work. You can then let them engage with you as much as they want or don’t want to afterwards. I would say 4 our of 5 times they want to engage more and talk about what just happened. But even if they don’t, assuming the trick is solid, it’s going to gnaw at their mind a little. And because you didn’t go in looking for their adulation, it’s going to make them wonder a little bit exactly what it was they just saw.

Visual

With a visual trick you’re going to create another area of need for them to help out with. You take out your phone and turn on the camera and try and prop the phone up against your coffee cup or whatever as you show something to the camera. Essentially you want it to look like you’re practicing something and recording it.

Now you turn to the person next to you and ask them if you could get their help quickly. Ask them to hold your phone and record your hands. They’re going to watch the trick, but they’re going to do so by watching it through a screen. Seeing a trick on a screen would normally dullen its impact. But it’s a much different situation when they’re the one capturing the magic on the screen themselves.

Almost every time I’ve done something like this (and it works for any visual trick, not just a card trick, of course), they’ve asked me to text them the video. So it’s a great way to potentially open the lines of communication beyond just this moment, if you’re so inclined.

But the real purpose of both of these techniques is to remove the “ask” of saying “Do you want to see a trick?” or “Can I show you something interesting.” Instead you turn the ask into a simple task, “Could you name a card and a number for me?” or “Could you record this for me.”

If I was going to pull a card trick on a stranger in that kind of environment, that’s likely the approach I would use.

---

Dustings #60

In keeping with some recent discussion on the site, there is a new GLOMM booting to announce. Jordan Parton from Wales has been kicked out of the Global League of Magicians and Mentalists.

Jordan Parton also performed under the name Crazy Clown Balloons—which, along with his taste in playing cards, should have been a tip-off that something was wrong with this dude. Crazy Clown Balloons isn’t a name. It’s just three somewhat related words. It would be like calling yourself Fun Magician Card-box.

Incredibly, the pictures below were not the most unsavory photos found on Justin’s computer…

You see, his crime involved posing as a 15-year-old boy online to get sexual images from girls over snapchat and then using those images to blackmail the girls into performing sex acts online which he would record.

Now, the GLOMM has recently come under attack by the WKPB (the White Knights of the Pedo Brigade). So I want to make sure I address their concerns.

1. Yes, this is a real person who was really convicted of these acts. No, it’s not just my neighbor who plays his music too loud and this is my way of getting back at him.

2. Yes, there is supporting data online. You can find it with a google search. Here is a link to get you started because I know you’re confused how google works.

3. No, I’m not suggesting “vigilanteism.” He is paying the legal price for what he did. And he’s paying the magic price by landing an eternal spot on the GLOMM's list.

4. Yes, I realize you could argue that there are worse crimes than grooming and blackmailing girls for the purposes of child porn. But this isn’t a FISM category where I’m trying to find the one World’s Most Monstrous Sex Criminal Magician.

This is not Jordan’s first run in with the law. Nine years ago he made up a bullshit story about being attacked on the street. I mean, there’s no follow-up to this story, but it’s clearly fiction. You don’t get punched and kicked for five minutes, as he claimed to be, and be left “uninjured.” That’s literally not how punching and kicking works. He clearly just dropped his Blackberry and had to come up with some excuse because he’s scared of his mom.

Well, regardless, Jordan Parton, once the youngest member of the Cardiff Magic Society (and as far as I know, still a member in good standing today), is the newest person to be kicked out of the GLOMM.

---

If you’re releasing a download teaching a trick that requires a lot of sleight of hand or specific hand positioning—like rubber-band effects, most coin tricks, many card effects—I think the right ratio is for about 90% of the video to come from the performer’s perspective, and 10% to be the audience view.

However, if one of the big magic companies wants to create the ultimate video teaching tool, they should have a video control panel specifically made for learning magic. And it should have the feature where, at any point, you can swap from the performer’s perspective to the audience’s view. Perhaps one view is always inset in the corner, and by clicking on it, that becomes the main view, swapping with the other.

In addition there should be a simple speed slider so you can increase and decrease speed easily. And a button that flips the image for people learning who are left-handed if the performer is right-handed (and vice-versa, of course).

There are probably other features that would be helpful too, but I’ve given you a start.

You would need one definitive downloadable version of the instruction video, but the interactive one could live on your site. Of course not every trick requires that level of clarity in teaching, but for those that do, it could be quite useful.

---

This is the trick you got if you were a member of the Society of American Magicians this past year.

“Attached is my gift to you for making it through the challenges of the past year.”

Did the continuing global pandemic cause you to lose your job or a loved one? If so, this trick is your gift for making it through that challenge.

Okay, okay… let’s try and dissect the many layers of this brilliant trick.

First you have the very common and modern conceit of a “wooden nickel.”

But it’s not just that. It also includes the very funny joke that if you put the word “tuit” on something that’s round you can then refer to it as “a round tuit,” which sound hilariously like the phrase “around to it.” Now we’re having fun!

It’s also includes the inspiring message, “We do more together.”

And finally, it say 4 of ❤️’s. Which is an interesting use of the possessive S. But with how well thought out this trick is, I’m sure there’s a reason behind it.

So just imagine the power of this trick. You force the 4 of Hearts on someone and then you hit them with what I consider the greatest, most logical, line in the history of magic. Just imagine how your spectator will react when they hear those three beautiful unrelated clauses jammed into a single sentence: “I knew you would pick the 4 of Hearts because we do more together when we get a round TUIT.”

What's the Worst Thing About: 1$TNR

A couple years ago this month I offered free advertising at the Jerx. I did that because a lot of people were offering to send me their products to talk about on the site, but I knew that wouldn’t go well. I’d just end up giving things positive reviews because I got them for free. You can see this on a number of youtube “review” channels. You might think, “Well, that’s not how it would work for me. I would definitely be able to be objective, even if I got something for free.” Okay, maybe. You’re better than me then.

So I offered a type of advertising where, if someone wanted, they could send me a product and I would detail the worst aspects of that product. That way, their product gets a little more exposure. I don’t feel bad about tearing it apart. And it’s still a somewhat valuable critique of the product. I’m not going to make up stuff that’s not good about it. I’m going to point out the genuine flaws in it, from my perspective. And if you don’t find those flaws too significant, then you could take that as a positive review of the product.

Unsurprisingly, this has not been very popular with magic creators. However it has served the purpose I wanted, which was to cause people to be less likely to offer to send me their stuff. You wouldn’t think this would be a hassle, but it is when you have the normal human instinct of reciprocation. When I do recommend something (usually in the newsletter where I do reviews), I want people to know I genuinely like it. And you lose that when your “reviews” become just a magic payola situation.

Now, for only the second time since introducing this feature, someone has taken me up on it the offer. Carl Irwin has sent along his One Dollar Torn and Restored effect for me to point out what I feel are its weaknesses.

Now, this is called the One Dollar Torn and Restored, not just because you’re tearing and restoring a dollar, but also because the trick costs one dollar. Yes, one dollar. (Or five easy payments of 20 cents.)

It’s kind of difficult to assess a trick that cost one dollar. Whatever issues you might have with it, the obvious response is, “Well… what did you expect? It was a dollar.”

The truth is, if I picked up a prostitute and she said it was one dollar for some oral action, and then all she did was elbow me in the junk, I still wouldn’t be like, “I want my dollar back!” That’s how little my expectations are for a dollar.

So, this might sound like faint praise, but 1$TNR is worth the price.

The effect is simply a torn and restored bill, card, post-it, or other small piece of paper. It is not impromptu, but the gimmicks could be carried with you fairly easily. It can be done sitting or standing. Other than having the gimmicks with you, there are no other performance requirements that I can think of. And at the end, you’re left with an examinable signed bill. You can see the trick in action here…

The basic method seems like something that should have existed before, because it’s not so far removed from other methods in magic. But I don’t recall having seen it (although I’m not an expert on this sort of thing). It could be completely original. Either way, it seems like enough thought was put into this download to justify it as its own release. Even if you understand the general idea, I can confidently assure you that there are aspects to the handling that you haven’t considered which are gone over in the download.

So what are the bad things about this trick?

Well, first, the royalty-free music used in the demo and on the download made me want to shoot myself in the fucking head.

But other than that, the worst thing about this trick is borne of its strengths. The strength is that it’s a signed bill that can be examined at the end. But because it’s signed and because it can be examined, that requires a method that fails to generate what the most truly hard-hitting effects have: conviction. For a torn and restored trick to be most effect and most affective, you need to generate conviction that this is their one and only bill that’s clearly being torn, and whose pieces are clearly being melded back together. This is, of course, a huge bar to clear in torn and restored effects, and most won’t get close to that goal. But still, that’s the weakness with this effect. You can’t generate enough conviction with it that you could really focus everyone’s attention on the clarity of the tearing, or the cleanliness of the restoration. At least not in the way you would need to for the most powerful type of magic.

I sent the performance video out to 8 laymen and got their thoughts on the effect and none of them nailed the method. But a number did say something like they’d want to see the pieces or the restoration more closely, which I think goes towards the lack of conviction that it was genuinely the same dollar being torn and then restored from those pieces.

However, for a quick, casual moment, I think this method will work pretty well. And for that reason I probably wouldn’t have the bill signed. Signing the bill makes it seem you’re taking extra precautions to be fair, which I don’t think makes a ton of sense with the nature of the tearing and restoring sequence, which isn’t explicitly fair. So unless you can have the bill marked for some other purpose, I would probably just borrow it, tear it up, restore it and hand it out. I wouldn’t put too much more into the effect than that.

How would I perform this? Hmmm… I would likely just ask people if they wanted to see something cool and then ask to borrow a bill (it can be any denomination). The people who know me would expect I’d have a trick to show them. Instead I’d tear up the bill while saying, “I’ve realized we can strike a blow against those pig capitalists, and release ourselves from the shackles of corporate oppression just by destroying money and taking it out of circulation. Isn’t that cool?” I’d then notice the look on the face of the person who lent me the dollar. “What’s the problem? Are you not down with the cause?” I’d look at the them incredulously. “You disgust me.” Then I’d restore the bill and toss it to them. “There’s your precious money. Go suckle at the teat of Walmart and Coca-Cola you corporate slave.”

I think this method is well suited to that type of performance. It’s a legitimate, workable method for a quick WTF moment, and well worth the meager asking price.

Dear Jerxy: Enchantment's Expiration

[Schedule note: The next two posts this week will be on Thursday and Saturday. For supporters, the final newsletter of the season will be coming in approximately two weeks.]

Dear Jerxy: So, reading about your evolving interest in enchantment, it occurred to me:

Who are you/we doing these things for?

I love long jokes with oblique punchlines. Everyone who knows me well knows this. Most of my friends, when I start telling a joke, start laughing, not because anything I’ve said is that funny yet (obviously) but because they know I like long jokes. They’re laughing at/about my indefatigability (for want of a better word.) They know what’s coming. Over time, this makes the delivery chapter more fun, and the punchlines progressively less satisfying. You just can’t do something for/to/with a person that many times and have it achieve the same effect. It’s like dropping acid. At some point, it’s like, “I just want to go to sleep."

So, there’s this category of effect your talk of enchantment made me imagine: effects to do for people you’ve done a lot of effects for in the past.

It’s one thing to short-circuit the typical magician/rube model on a stranger or new friend. But how do you extend and grow this thing…?

No matter how inventive your long con is, “I’m a person who’s interested in the blurry edges of our experience,” it has to increase in intensity, it seems to me. That intensity can take unexpected forms, but it makes total sense that Houdini gravitated towards seances and spiritualism — what can’t possibly be a trick?

…

I’m at a point where I can pull off an “I started with card tricks, but look what I found…” and it will seem credible for me, i.e., I can go from fooling to enchantment or eeriness. But once you’ve done that transition, the clock is ticking. Even enchantment is just “enchantment" the third time.

Signed,
Alliterative in Altadena

Dear Alliterative: I’m going to start with your last line and work backwards.

Even enchantment is just “enchantment" the third time.

I think this isn’t quite an accurate statement. But I think it does suggest the problem of making “fooling” people your sole goal in magic.

Feeling “fooled” is a neutral emotion. It can be positive, negative, (or neither) depending on the context of the fooling.

It’s negative when someone fools you to take advantage of you—to steal your money, or your time, or your anal virginity, for example.

It’s positive when it’s used in the context of entertainment, like a twist-ending in a movie.

The mistake that I think we make as magicians is thinking that being fooled is an inherently positive thing. It’s not. It’s easy to convince ourselves that it is though, because we may show someone a very bland trick—a trick that offers nothing more than being fooled— and get a nice reaction from it. We see this all the time in demo videos—a trick that seems sort of average gets a fully freaked out reaction. Well, in part that’s because these people have a camera in their face, and that “inspires” a good reaction in certain people. And it’s also true that being fooled tends to be a positive experience when it’s novel.

If you’re an amateur, and you perform for the same people somewhat regularly, the novelty of simply being fooled can wear off pretty quickly. Sometimes after maybe just a few tricks—even when spread out over time. After that, they can still be fooled, but it can be a much more neutral experience because they’ve become accustomed to that feeling of seeing something inexplicable.

So if you have a trick that just fools, you’re going to want to hope that your spectator isn’t someone who has burned out on the novelty of being fooled.

But enchantment is not a feeling that diminishes, in my experience. It’s inherently positive. At least as we use it in relation to magic tricks.

So saying: Even enchantment is just “enchantment" the third time…

Is like saying, “Even a delicious meal is just ‘delicious’ the third time.” Or, “Even an orgasm is just an ‘orgasm” the third time.” Or, “Even rolling on the floor with laughter is just ‘rolling on the floor with laughter’ the third time.” I don’t think any of that is true. Because these are explicitly positive experiences.

“So you’re saying if you were ‘enchanted’ once every hour of the day for six months, that the enjoyment of that wouldn’t wear off?”

No, I’m saying you couldn’t be enchanted that much. That’s not how the experience works.

You could, however, be fooled every hour of the day for six months by a magic trick. And before the end of that first day, that feeling would cease to truly excite you.

The concern that they could “burn out on enchantment” is, I think, unnecessary. True enchantment (which is different than just being entertained and fooled simultaneously) is such a difficult thing to generate that I don’t think you have to worry about overdoing it.

Now l want to address this sentence:

“No matter how inventive your long con is, ‘I’m a person who’s interested in the blurry edges of our experience,’ it has to increase in intensity, it seems to me.”

I don’t think this is the case. The analogy I’ve used before, because it’s the one I think about most often, is that performing amateur magic should have all the range of a sexual encounter. You can have a romantic, lingering love-making session where your souls intertwine, over the course of an evening until it becomes morning. Or you can slide your hand down her pants in the back of a movie theater. It doesn’t need to always increase in intensity to be memorable and pleasurable. Variety of experience and intensity is probably more important than just constantly leveling up the experience. Magic is the same way.

When I’m lucky enough to really nail someone with a super-strong, immersive trick that takes them on a wild ride over 40 minutes and they’re legitimately questioning their own judgment regarding what’s real or not, I don’t feel the need to follow that up with something even stronger the next time. In fact, I might intentionally show them something that’s just like a neat optical illusion on the back of a business card or something. I want them to feel like they can’t be sure what to expect when they find me moving into a trick. And I find that refractory period is helpful to reset their expectations. Constantly trying to top yourself can be draining and it can make the experience more predictable. So mixing up the intensity is a perfectly valid way to perform, in my opinion. And that’s just one variable we can use to create different types of experiences in amateur/social magic. (In an upcoming post I’ll be going into some others.)

You asked the question “Who are you doing this for?” For me it’s because I’m doing these things with the spectator in mind that I don’t worry about making each moment bigger than the last. I don’t see the trick as a reflection on me. It should hopefully be something worthwhile for the spectator. And because it’s a “gift” in that sense, I don’t need to raise the stakes each time. For the same reason I don’t feel the need to get my girlfriend a nicer present each time I give her a gift. And if she said, “Hmm… I don’t like this. This isn’t as nice as the last thing you got me.” I’d say, “Beat it, bitch,” and find someone else to be the recipient of my efforts.

In Defense of Tom Stone

So, the subject that has been cluttering my email box continues to be the GLOMM discussion and what exactly is going on with Tom Stone on facebook. His issue with me creating a list of magicians who have been convicted of sex crimes based on publicly available information is striking some people as bizarre, bordering on creepy.

I fully understand why his response weirds people out. If someone says, “Here’s a list of people in our industry who were convicted of sex crimes,” and someone else says, “The real problem here is the list itself!” That’s going to make you feel a little…

I admit, it’s not a great look for Tom. But before moving on from this subject, I want to defend Tom and say that I don’t believe his weird stance on this is in any way motivated by a lack of care for the victims of sexual crimes, or because he himself is any type of secret sexual predator or whatever inferences people may come to. I don’t know the guy personally, I can’t vouch for him. But I don’t think that’s what’s going on.

However, I do think I can clarify what’s behind his postings and why they seem so nonsensical.

Originally, when the GLOMM list was first posted on facebook, he called it “vigilanteism” and he would go on to express a concern that maybe there were people on the list who shouldn’t be on there. The “vigilanteism” claim is, of course, moronic. But the concern that maybe there were people being labeled as sex criminals who weren’t is valid. In my opinion, falsely accusing someone of a sex crime is on the same spectrum of heinousness as committing a sex crime. But, it was a misplaced fear as everyone on the list was a convicted sex criminal. Not only did I come out and say it, but it was easily verified too.

In fact, A GLOMM elite member even went to the trouble of creating a spreadsheet of the people on the list and detailed their crimes with links to supporting evidence. “Well, that must have put the issue to bed, yes?” No, it literally had no effect on Tom. He was still bothered that such a list exists. And it’s at that point where I believe people started to think, “Wait… why exactly is Tom so against a now verified list of convicted sex criminal magicians?” This is the point where it goes from a “weird hill to die on” to “do we need to check Tom’s hard drive?”

But I’ll reiterate again that I don’t think that’s the issue.

Because his initial claims/concerns were found to be total garbage, his new stance is that me even joking about maintaining one list that included both pedophiles and assholes is the issue.

He writes: “An anonymous person who think it is a funny joke to add innocent names to a list of horrible criminals should not be seen as an authority in the matter. […] Did he add those innocent people like he said he would? I don't know. Maybe he did, and later removed them? Who knows? I'd be a lot more at ease with it, if there were an actual person signing the document, and that the person was someone who didn't consider pedophile smears to be amusing.”

“Did he add those innocent people like he said he would? I don't know. Maybe he did, and later removed them? Who knows?”

This is kind of a weird statement from someone who claims he’s concerned about unfounded accusations.

Use your head, dingbat. Would I just add someone to the list who I thought was an asshole and never mention that I did that on this site? You may not read the site, but 1000s of other people do. Wouldn’t they have some memory of me doing this? Or do you figure I was doing it for my own secret thrill? Just adding and removing people for the fuck of it?

“I'd be a lot more at ease with it, if there were an actual person signing the document, and that the person was someone who didn't consider pedophile smears to be amusing.”

Okay, Bob Smith wrote the list. Okay? This is Bob Smith. He wrote the list. I promise you. He finds “pedophile smears” (even the ones that never occurred that you’re so concerned about) to be just awful. Not amusing at all. If you’re going to pretend that’s what your issue is, then I’m going to solve it for you. Problem solved. Now you can move the fuck on.

I guess maybe I’d be a little more sensitive to Tom’s concerns if so much of what he wrote wasn’t complete horseshit.

I’m fascinated by this description of my site and you, the audience who reads this site…

“As I recall, a lot of his material was modeled in ‘pick-up artist’ style. The book ‘The Game’ also have an audience, and I don't trust that audience either.”

Mmhmm…. okay. Sure, sure.

WHAT THE FUCK IS HE TALKING ABOUT?!?!?

Oh, you all know that material I have that is modeled on the “pick-up artist” style, right? Yeah, so much. “A lot” of my material, according to Tom, at least.

Except…I don’t write about using magic to pick up women at all other than to make fun of the idea. So what dull recess of his brain did he pull that out of? Is it just that he is so socially and interpersonally awkward that he interprets me telling a story about showing a trick to someone I’m dating, or someone who happens to be female, to be a story about me using magic to “pick up” women? Now, look, I can’t say for sure what is going on in that head of his, but it’s indisputable that he’s fantasticating “a lot” of my material being about “picking up” women. So why would he do that? I mean other than the fact that he’s desperately stumbling around trying to support an argument and failing at every turn.

It might just be a generational thing. We think of that old-school magic as being a bit of a boy’s club, but that’s just because a lot of those dudes were scared of women. That attitude still exists today with an older set of magicians. Some magicians are too busy infantilizing or sexualizing every woman they see and can’t quite wrap their head around seeing a woman as a robust equal who you might casually show a trick to for the fun of it. So if I write a post about performing for a female, they interpret it as, “I guess he just was doing that to fuck her or something?” Am I doing too much work to justify where his comments come from? Maybe. I guess he could have just been intentionally lying.

(By the way, if you’d like to see an example of the sordid and skeevy “pick up artist” content on this site, here is a post called “What Women Want” where I give my insight into the topic. My advice is that if you’re trying to meet women you should be normal and you should try to exude a positive energy. And then once you get that down you should attempt to add a little bit of mystery to your personality. Such sleazy advice, I know. No wonder Tom “doesn’t trust” this audience. You’re a bunch of sick fucks.)

But here’s where I get to defending Tom Stone, because I want to help him out of the corner he has painted himself into where he seems much more concerned with his own imagined flaws about the list rather than that there are enough names to make a list in the first place. I’m not saying this is his intention, but It comes across as someone who is trying to sweep things under the rug. But I don’t think this is an issue of Tom protecting sexual predators. I think Tom just doesn’t like me specifically. And so, if I’m doing something that goes towards holding sex criminals accountable in some small way, then Tom is forced to walk a tightrope where he is against what I’m doing without trying to come off as pro-sex-criminals. So he ends up being caught in this sad, goofy dance of trying to find something to be bothered by.

“There shouldn’t be an anonymous list like this! It’s vigilanteism! He could put anyone on this list.”

We looked and they’re all convicted sex criminals.

“Okay… well… yes… but… maybe he put innocent people on the list and removed them!”

To what end? There’s no evidence of that.

“But he said he might!”

And he’s come out and clarified that he wasn’t serious about that.

“Well… you shouldn’t joke about these things!”

And that’s the point we’re currently at. What he’s claiming to be upset about now is his own misunderstanding of a joke that I never actually followed through on.

He got so desperate for something to complain about that when someone came in and created a spreadsheet with information about the crimes and links to further information, this was his response.

Yeah, dude? Why didn’t you post this before the site even existed and before most of these people had even committed their crimes?

By the point where he was complaining about people not documenting pre-crimes, it became clear his arguing was a bit disingenuous.

The sad irony is, the original threat of the GLOMM was that I was going to associate asshole magicians with convicted sex criminals. While I never actually did that to anyone, Tom ended up doing that to himself.

I think Tom got tunnel vision because he doesn’t like me. Why doesn’t he like you, Andy? Oh, because one time I said Tommy Wonder’s advice regarding misdirection was terrible when applied to performing in casual situations.

Wait… really?

Yes, that’s my understanding. I heard from a couple people at the time that Tom was upset by that.

And that’s why he’s being so weird about this list?

I know it seems insane, but yes, I think so. 🤷‍♂️

If Tom wants to clarify any of these issues, I’ll happily publish his response (or I’ll keep it private if he prefers).