Salvage Yard: Alive

[This is a continuation on what I was talking about in yesterday’s post. Yesterday’s post was published later in the day because I forgot to schedule it. So you may need to go back and read yesterday’s post to put this in context.]

I mentioned yesterday about a new trick that uses a shitty force with a (potentially) strong reveal.

The trick is called Alive. It’s a trick where lines written on a notepad transform into a “random word” thought of by the spectator.

You can see the full demo here.

How do we get to this, “random word”?

Well, by asking them to look at the cover of the notebook and to pick out any “random word you see here, like wizard or key.”

Well, once you take “wizard” and “key” out of the equation, what exactly are your other options? Pretty much just LOVE staring you straight in the face.

This “force” of a word is not going to fool people. It won’t fool your smart friends. It won’t fool your dumb friends. If you’re sent back to the 1960s, and President Kennedy himself asked you to do table-hopping at a banquet dinner for this organization, it wouldn’t fool anyone there either. It’s just not deceptive.

The moving ink portion of the effect might be good, but not when attached to this method of forcing the word.

Oh, and another thing. The ad states:

“You show your prediction (a few lines in a random order) to the spectator and tell him this is his word written in the Japanese.”

Is this what you think Japanese writing looks like?

Just random lines strewn across a page? It doesn’t even work as a joke.

How would I fix this trick?

Let’s play around with some ideas.

Apparently you don’t have to force the word “Love.” It says you can set up the pad for “any” word, but there’s no way that’s true. So for the sake of exploring some ideas let’s just assume the word is “Love.”

You could fix the force to something not so fucking dopey.

You know that old force that’s in kids books where you ask someone to name vegetables (or something similar) and you write down the vegetables they say on different slips of paper? And then they freely choose one and you predicted it would be “carrot”? The method, as I’m sure you know, is simply to write down carrot on every slip, and make sure they name it at some point when they’re naming off vegetables. (There are ways to up the deceptiveness of that force, which I’ll get into in a future post.) By asking one member of a couple to name some feelings they have for the other person in the couple, you’re bound to hit on Love eventually

Or you could use a clear force bag, or the DFB app, or forcing the word “love” from a book, or from a list of words using Clippo. All of these are stronger than the force currently used in the trick. But I think a force might be the wrong option here.

I think it’s the wrong option because what is the reveal of the force? The reveal is random lines forming the word. The question becomes… why did you draw random lines? Just to move them so you could do the reveal? It doesn’t make sense. It’s using magic to make something more complicated than it would be otherwise. That’s not what magic should feel like.

If you’re going to use a force, don’t then write your prediction down after they think of the word. Instead, force the word, then show them the prediction that was already on the pad. “This is my generic prediction. It works for any word. Humans are built to see patterns in things. So if you concentrate on your word and look into these lines I can convince you it says anything.”

But I probably wouldn’t go with a force. I’d do something like this…

I’d pull out a piece of paper from the notebook and say I was going to write down a word. I’d write something down and fold the paper.

“I wrote a word on that paper. It’s a simple word. One syllable. And it’s a powerful word. I’m going to try and send you the thought of that word and you’re going to write it on this pad in a kind of ‘automatic writing.’” [I would explain the term if they weren’t familiar with that.]

I’d have them hold a sharpie (a dry one that doesn’t write) in their fist under the table. “Without looking you’re going to draw some random lines all over the page. Some short. Some long. Don’t think about it. Just let your subconscious take over.”

I would hold the pad under the table for them. You may not actually want them “drawing” on the gimmicked side of the pad, even with a dry marker. So I might turn the whole pad over under the table.

They would do their marks. I would know when to stop them because I have a general idea how many marks are on the prepped side of the pad.

I pull out the pad and hold it towards myself without looking at it.

“Do you have any idea what word I wrote down? As I said, it’s a short but powerful word.”

They may hit on “love.” It’s probably the most obvious answer. If they do, congratulate them and move forward.

Let’s say they don’t though. Let’s say they say, “Cock.”

“Short and powerful, yes. But no. That’s what your conscious mind suggested. I was trying to send a message to your unconscious mind. I believe you wrote ‘love’ on this pad without even thinking about.”

I take a peek at the pad.

I pause.

“Uhm… yup. You did.”

I pause, still looking at the paper.

“And more amazingly… you did it in Japanese,” I say, turning the pad towards them at the same time.

Now, the “Japanese writing” remark is you humorously scrambling to obviously spin something into a “win” for you. It’s much funnier that way.

“I know it looks like I screwed up. Or you screwed up. Or we both screwed. But actually, I do see the elements of love written here.”

Shake the pad and cause the word to form from the markings.

No shitty force. No force at all. Just magic.

Non-Cumulative Deception

Here’s something to keep in mind when creating a routine. It may sound like common sense, but it’s not necessarily so. I only really “got it” through testing and discussing effects with laymen in a very mechanical way, e.g. “Why did you only rank this trick as a 6 as far as ‘impossibility’ goes? What doesn’t strike you as impossible about this?” Getting this granular with feedback is the sort of thing that is uncomfortable to do, but it’s also the most productive sort of testing there is. Often the extent of “testing” a magician will do is to perform a trick and then just trust his own judgment on how it went. This is nearly impossible. People react to stuff so differently. Some people will shriek at the climax of a trick, but immediately forget it and move on. Some people will silently and stoically take in a trick and it will affect them for weeks. Only by interviewing people and really beating down on what they liked/didn’t like, what seemed amazing or impossible or magical, etc, can you really know if you’re achieving what you’re going for.

I’m not saying you do that for every performance. But when you’re breaking in an effect, it’s necessary. And certainly if you’re creating the effect yourself.

Imagine these two situations:

Experience #1

We’re outside. “Do you have a lucky number. Like a single digit number? Eight? Mine is four. I don’t know that I’d even call it a ‘lucky’ number exactly. But it’s this number that has always followed me around. I’m one of four kids. I was born on the 4th day of the 4th month. I was 4th in my graduating class. Even, like, when rolling dice. It doesn’t always come up four, of course. But way more often then it should. It’s actually really weird. Like… look at that cloud for instance.”

I point to a cloud in the distance. I extend my hand towards it and focus on it. The cloud begins to move and shift.

Experience #2

We’re outside. “Do you have a lucky number. Like a single digit number? Okay, just think of that number. Multiply it by nine. Now add the digits of the number you’re now thinking of together. Now subtract five. Okay. Now you have a number in your head that nobody could know, yes. Take a look at that cloud.”

And the cloud changes to your number.

Which is the stronger trick?

Experience #2 should be, because there is more deception in it. In Experience #1, I choose the number. So there’s no deception there. So the cloud turning into the #4 is the same amount of impossibility in each experience. But in the second experience, how we got to the number 4 is itself somewhat deceptive. So we have the impossibility of the cloud turning into the 4. And on top of that we have whatever deception we gain from the way we got to the number 4 in the first place. It might not be super deceptive, but it is something. So we could assume that would be overall a stronger experience.

But that’s not how it works.

In a magic trick with multiple deceptive elements, the deception is not cumulative. There is some sort of weighted average going on with the deceptive elements.

So if I point to a cloud and say, “I’m going to make that into the #4,” and I do so, that’s maybe a 99 out of 100 in impossibility.

If I do the same thing, make a cloud change (a 99/100 in impossibility) into a number that “I couldn’t know” (a mathematical force that is maybe a 15/100 impossibility), the overall experience becomes something like a 85/100. It’s not a straight average, but it certainly doesn’t automatically increase the overall impossibility.

This goes back to the subject of “Easy Answers.” If the spectator has an “easy answer” to one part of the effect, it brings down the whole effect. Make sure when you’re adding deception to a trick, you’re not also adding a weakness to the trick.

This is something that often happens with “magical reveals.” If your reveal is magical and strong, then the way you get to the thing you’re revealing has to be strong as well.

Let’s say you had a deck that vanished except for one card.

The best option would be a strong force of that card, combined with the vanish of the deck.

The second best option is no force. You just say something like, “It looks like a full deck, yes? That’s just an illusion. I don’t carry a full deck with me. I just keep my lucky card with me, the 9 of Spades.” (That’s not great, but it’s better than the following option.)

The worst option is to use a bad force combined with the vanish of the deck. Because now the overall experience is sullied by the bad force.

I think magicians often think, “Well, the reveal is so strong and magical that it doesn’t really matter how we got there.” But it does.

Tomorrow we’ll look at a recent release that suffers greatly from not understanding this concept.

Dustings #73

I need to start this post off with an apology. Look, I know I like to have fun on this site, but for once just let me be serious.

In the most recent issue of the Love Letters monthly, I wrote about Matt Baker’s Vanishing Inc. Masterclass.

Matt is a mathematics professor and he frequently combines his two loves, as he did in the Masterclass which featured magic with math-based methods.

In that issue of Love Letters I wrote the following:

I’m going to be honest with you, Matt. You know who I feel bad for? Your parents.

Can you imagine, you have a kid and he starts going to school and you find out he has a real love of math? So you’re desperately trying to get him into football or racing BMX bikes or something at least somewhat cool. And then one day he comes home and he’s like, “I’ve got a new hobby?” And you’re praying it’s not something dorky. And then he’s like, “Now I like math and magic!” And you’re just like, “Aw shit. Well...I guess we can put off that sex talk for another couple decades.”

That was wrong of me to say. It was wrong of me to suggest the combination of these two hobbies would necessarily cause Matt to be a social pariah who had a “girlfriend in Canada” for the bulk of his high school career and had to see a specialist for prescription cream to heal the rash he received from all the wedgies inflicted on him.

That just seemed to be the most likely scenario when you’re into math and magic. To put it into terms Matt would understand, I thought there was something of a square-cube law situation going on. So that as the number of geeky hobbies you were involved in doubled the time before you touched a booby would increase by a factor of 8.

This was just a theory of mine. And now I know I was way off.

You see, someone reached out to me with photographic evidence that I could not have been more wrong about how cool Matt was in school.

Behold…

Mmmmmmm…

Look, I’m not gay, but your boy ain’t blind either.

The hair? The outfit? The subject matter of his presentation?

Some of Matt’s former classmates wrote to inform me that—as that picture suggests—this guy slayed more beaver than the North American fur trade.

Here I was assuming that his interest in math and magic probably meant that his mom had to convince his cousin to accompany him to prom. As I’ve learned, I couldn’t have been further from the truth. I don’t want to get into all the stories I’ve been told about Matt’s younger days (I don’t want this site to get busted for peddling such raw smut). But let’s just say the “nomial-geometric series” wasn’t the only thing that was “poly” in this picture. One relationship was simply not enough to satisfy Matt’s burning passions and oozing machismo.

So, again, I’m so, so, so sorry for jumping to conclusions. And I will try not to make that mistake again.


When the new version of Color Match came out recently, I asked people if they had any particularly strong use cases for it.

I had completely forgotten that I had pitched an idea for such a trick a couple years ago.

It would take some doing to pull that off, but now that a much less expensive (although still fairly expensive) version of that effect is available, I figure I’d re-mention it because it would be a good spooky effect for this month.


As I’ve done in the past, I’m watching a different horror movie every day in October. I was using this list of the best horror movies of 2021 to help me pick what to watch, but that was a mistake. It’s not a good list. Look, when I first got into horror movies in the 80s and 90s they were generally the most fun, exciting, sexy, and (obviously) scary movies you could see. That’s why I loved horror movies. Perhaps my taste in movies should have evolved since I was 14. But, sorry, it hasn’t. And I don’t really connect with this new style of horror that is slow-moving, humorless, and not particularly scary.

Not every horror movie is like that, of course, but the list I was working off certainly tilted in that direction at the top.

At this point in the month, I don’t have a ton to recommend. But for those horror fans who have communicated with me in the past, I figured I’d keep you abreast of what I’ve seen so far. Five days in (as of this writing).

The best one so far: Saint Maud. This was well made and well acted, and gradually ramped up the scare factor as it went on. I just thought it was okay for most of it. Then, in literally the last half-second of the film, it jumped up in my esteem from “okay” to “pretty good.” That it could do that in just a few frames of film was a pretty cool trick.

These movies were fine, but not at all scary: Antlers, Bloodthirsty, Werewolves Within

The first two of those were slow and not scare-less. Werewolves Within is a horror-comedy. And as much as I like horror and comedy, the two rarely mix well for me.

The worst one so far: Dementer. This one looks like it was made for about $45, which I have no issue with. Budget doesn’t matter that much with horror movies. And there was a legitimately creepy vibe throughout it. But the story was just too vague to interest me. I don’t need everything spelled out for me, but when everything is sort of ambiguous (what happens before the story, during the story, and at the end of the story) that’s a sign of bad writing. It’s very easy to “make people think” by not giving them any answers. The real achievement is being able to give them the answers and still have their mind racing.

I abandoned the list I was working off of originally for one of my own creation which will include more commercial horror films. I’ll let you know if I stumble on anything particularly good.

Hardcore Rationalizing

I saw my favorite type of hardcore rationalizing on the Magic Cafe recently. It was in a thread for a trick called Overdraft.

It’s a trick with credit cards. They change color and change places among other things. I don’t really have anything to say about the trick because I don’t own it or have any particular thoughts on it. But in the discussion over on the Cafe, they were talking about examinability and we got this post:

“If you are able to build your routine that allows the spectators to handle the props during the routine, there is no need to hand them out for inspection.

I just don't grasp the constant need to hand everything out to be inspected. In my opinion, when constantly handing the props out; allow people to enjoy the magic moments and don't ruin it by offering inspection, they know magic is not real and by handing the items out all the time, IMHO, one is just presenting puzzles.”

I’m not going to call the author out by name (it’s easy enough to figure out if you care). But do I think the writer really believes what he wrote? Hmmm… you know when a woman will say about her abusive husband, “He beats me because he loves me!” I think the person who wrote that post believes it in that way. He wants it to be true. But it’s not.

The first sentence is just objectively inaccurate. “Handling” an object early on in a routine does not negate the power of having the object examined after the magic. Handling ≠ Examination. That’s because people don’t know what to look for if they’re just “handling” an object. If I said, “The cashier gave you a fake $20 back.” You wouldn’t say, “No she didn’t! I handled it!” You’d say, “Hold on, let me get a look at that.”

The other paragraph there is just straight-up nonsense. I don’t think the person who wrote it is dumb. He has just been so thoroughly brainwashed by magic marketers who say things like, “If they want to examine the deck, you need to work on your performance.” If you believe that sort of thing in the least, you are so far away from understanding how real humans think, you have zero chance of truly affecting them with a magic trick.

[T]hey know magic is not real and by handing the items out all the time, IMHO, one is just presenting puzzles.”

There is not a spectator alive who would have this thought: “When the credit card changed color, it seemed incredibly magical. But then when I got to look at it at the end and see it was really a normal, ungimmicked credit card… then it became just a puzzle to me.” What kind of kicked-in-the-head-by-a-donkey, brandead dipshit would your spectator have to be to think that way?

This idea that people “know magic isn’t real” so you don’t need to go out of your way to present magic in a way that seems real, is insane to me. Why are you bothering to perform the trick with any elements of deception then? Just let them read the instructions.

Certainly you could go overboard with having things examined. You don’t need to force examination down people’s throats. You don’t need to get them to examine things they have no suspicion of. But when the ONLY answer they have in their mind as to what happened is “trick deck,” “trick coin,” “trick credit card,” or whatever, then giving them the chance to examine the object in question is the final step in creating a magical moment for them.

Your Clueless Spectator Stories

In this post I asked people to write in with their stories of clueless spectators. I got a good number of responses, however not all were what I’m referring to as “clueless.” Some were stories of dumb spectators. That’s something different. I like stories of dumb people too, but they’re not as interesting to me as a clueless spectator. Dumb people may mess up your trick. But they’d mess up their multiplication tables or an Arby’s order too. Fucking up is what they do.

“Clueless” spectators may be dumb. But sometimes they’re reasonably intelligent but just have a blind spot for magic. These are people who seem specifically clueless to even just the concept of what a trick is. They react to tricks in way that are almost impossible to prepare for.

There are certain elements that play into this. They might not have ever seen close-up magic before. They may be somewhat disengaged with the performance, so they’re not really following it like they should. Or they may be so unwilling to be fooled that they twist the experience in their head into one where they know what’s going on, when they really don’t.

I don’t know that there’s too much to be learned from clueless spectators. But it’s helpful to differentiate a clueless reaction from a bad reaction. I’ve had people not respond very well to a given trick, but then I find what sort of thing they like and I can get them really into certain types of magic. But a clueless response is really indicative of someone who will likely never be a particularly good magic audience. If you’re an amateur performer, I wouldn’t waste much time trying to find material that works for the clueless people in your life.

Here are some of your stories…

I was performing the linking finger rings in a show a few months ago. After the rings linked, I walked up to the first spectator to verify that her ring was on the chain and that it was truly linked. Her jaw was on the floor as she confirmed, "Yes, that's definitely my ring!" But her drunk husband said "No, that can't be your ring because yours isn't connected to two other rings." At first I thought he was being sarcastic, but it quickly became clear that he was just clueless. I dryly responded, "Yes, I've been doing magic tricks for the last 20 minutes, that might have something to do with it," and everyone had a good laugh. After the show, I was behind the curtain and I overheard him asking his wife about that trick because he still didn't understand.

Sometimes, a spectator will half-jokingly make a dumb guess ("Oh you must have hidden cameras," or "You guys are all in on it to screw with me"), but its rare that I get a spectator who says something whole-heartedly idiotic like in that story above. —KK


I had one clueless spectator who really stands out to me. She was a co-worker who was very interested when I started learning card magic. Some time later, I had gotten competent with David's Cull, and was using it to do Shuffle-Bored impromptu. So one day I was doing a couple tricks over coffee for a member of our organisation, and this co-worker was at her desk. Since she had was interested in the couple of tricks I showed her weeks prior, I asked if she could helps us with one.

When she came over, I had her shuffle the deck, and then used a Lennart Green type of presentation where I'm going to track the cards through some more shuffling, but this time face up and face down. First, I went through the deck, allegedly to concentrate on the order of the cards so I could track them through the next bit of shuffling. Of course, I was separating my stack for the coming reveal. I "cut" the cards and handed my stack to the guy, and the rest to her. They each shuffled, then the face up and face down bits, etc.

I told them the number of face down cards, number of black, number of clubs, and that all the clubs were even numbers. She pointed out that the three of clubs was in there, so not all even. I just shrugged and said I got close, so it was pretty good. She agreed.

But then the weird part happened. I asked her to look at a pad of paper over on my desk, the last page. As she went over, I said something like, "I did ok. Everything was right except the three of clubs." Naturally the last page had "except the three of clubs" written on it.

She paused a moment and then said, "Oh! So it's the same every time." I asked what she meant and she said it must be that any time you shuffle a deck of cards that way, you get the same result. Like she thought if you genuinely shuffle them (as she did at first), then two people each mix half-ish, then you shuffle the face up and face down bits, you'll automatically get the result we got. —LT


Here is one clueless spectator story that stood out for me from a long time ago. I was at a wedding reception and did a handful of card tricks for a bunch of friends of friends. At one point I did Invisible Palm Aces. After the next trick (be honest what is it), one guy said something along the lines of “you’re just palming the cards”, as if that would explain how two cards had changed in someone’s hands.

My own assessment —having had a lot of other cases over the years — is that many clueless spectator are the result of either a) the spectator wasn’t engaged in the trick to begin with and is basically zoning out or b) they find the experience of not having an answer so frustrating they just toss out any thing they can cling to, and decide that has to be the solution, even if it doesn’t make much sense. —AP


Did a coin bend in the spec's hand. When she opened her hand, her friends freak out. She turns to them and says "What's the big deal? I was squeezing as hard as I could." —AG


The following is a true story that haunts me to this day.

It was my first year in magic. I was 13. I was performing a show for my relatives. After I successfully transformed nickels to dimes (with a cool brass prop that I still use 49 years later), my Aunt Jeannie picked up one of the dimes.

Aunt Jeannie was neither retarded nor brain-damaged. Just dumb as a stump.

I watched in disbelief as she held the dime to her ear and shook it.

I shrieked, "What are you doing, Aunt Jeannie?"

She looked at me with a knowing smirk and said, "I know the nickel is inside the dime. I'm shaking it, trying to hear it rattle."

I was horrified and slack-jawed. I said nothing. I ended the show and beat a hasty retreat.

I couldn't comprehend how she couldn't understand that her satisfying solution was impossible. What the hell was going on inside of her head? —TF

When I wrote back to TF to suggest that clearly the woman was joking, he responded:

Nope.  She was serious and certain that she busted me.  She really was “a block, a stone, a less than senseless thing.”

On another occasion, a bunch of us kids were submerging our squirt guns in a tub of water to fill them.  Jeannie put a balloon in the tub of water and was surprised that it didn’t fill with water!  It works with squirt guns, why not water balloons?

Honest to God.  That’s what makes it so chillingly horrible!  This was in rural Cambridge Ohio.  My relatives and most people there could have been extras in Deliverance. —TF


Didn’t happen to me, but I think it was David Roth who talked about a time he was doing a coins across, and got to the second coin, where he did the standard bit where you release the coin from classic palm to clink on the coin that’s already there. We think of this as the magic moment, but this one spectator looked up like she had caught him out and said “Oh—I heard it.” And for her that was the end. It wasn't magic that the coin travelled, because she heard it. —PM

The Dress-Rehearsal Performance Style

AFC, writes:

I was wondering what presentation you’d end up with, for the trick: cylinder and coins by John Ramsay.

I was thinking about it, and I found it difficult for these reasons:

It’s magician centric, there’s no participation on the persons part other than watch lol, and the traditional props involved are strange. Leather cylinder, cork, 4 old dollars, a wand. […]

What would you do out of curiosity? Or is this trick just so contradictory to your style it’s dead in the water? —AFC

You’re correct in guessing that I’m not a fan of this trick and wouldn’t really ever perform it. I know Joshua Jay is a big fan and recently released his version. Usually I trust his judgment, but this trick is a snooze. It’s like the Cups and Balls. Something meaningless happens multiple times. Nobody cares. But it’s fun to practice so we inflict it on people.

You know it’s not a good trick just based on the name: Cylinder and Coins. Again, this is like the Cups and Balls or Ring and String where the effect is so bland they’re like, “Hmm… what should I name this trick? Ah, shit. I can’t think of anything. Well, let me just look at the objects that are on the table.” That’s not how you name a trick. That’s just lazy. Crazy Man’s Handcuffs… now that’s a fucking name for a trick!

At any rate, in his email, AFC actually hit on how I would perform this trick if I was going to. I edited that part out because it would have been somewhat anticlimactic if it was in there.

Basically what I would use is…

The Dress Rehearsal Presentation Style

The DRPS puts a layer of pretense between you and what you’re demonstrating and adds a context to what would otherwise be a meaningless exhibition of skill.

Essentially it involves telling the audience that what they’re about to see is a “rehearsal” for a future presentation. It’s similar to the Peek Backstage Style of performance.

You might say, “I’m working on a routine for a magic competition. We all have to do our version of a classic effect called Cylinder and Coins. Would you mind watching a run-thru of it? I want to get a couple reps of it in with someone watching to make sure it flows right.”

You might say, “I’m working on a version of a trick for my uncle’s birthday. He was the first one who showed me this trick 40 years ago—which originally got me into magic. Could you take a look and see if it all flows together well from your perspective?”

Or, “I’m working on a trick for a talent show at work. They’re running a vintage talent show, where everyone has to demonstrate a talent someone might have had 50 or more years ago. Singing old songs. Telling old jokes. Or, in my case, demonstrating a classic magic trick. Could I get your opinion on it?”

The thing about tricks like the Cylinder and Coins or Cups and Balls is that they tend to be impersonal and long. So you want to have a rationale for why you’re taking their time with something so utterly disconnected from them (and from you). Without a rationale, an extended, impersonal effect is going to feel awkward in a social setting. By giving people the context of a “rehearsal,” it frames the effect in a way they can more easily appreciate.

While We Were Out

Here’s some stuff that came up over the break..


I was out with a friend who had recently received a trick called Light Year. It’s brand new and I was focused on other stuff this past week so it slipped by me and I hadn’t seen it before he showed it to me in person.

It’s kind of hard to describe. It’s these little tiles with holes all over them.

And when the cards are aligned over a light source, the holes form a number the spectator is thinking of.

I thought it was really cool. If you had told me the effect and then put me in a room to figure out exactly how to create the tiles in a way where this would work, I would probably die in that room. My mind just doesn’t work in that manner.

There was another magician-friend out with us as well. He liked the looks of this too. And we watched it performed 5 times and it got nice reactions every time. But interestingly, the reactions weren’t like, “How do these crazy tiles work?” The reactions were more like, “How did he know the number I chose?” Everyone seemed to understand that these tiles could be aligned in different ways to make different numbers. So while the reveal was kind of cool to people, that didn’t seem to come off as the impressive part. The impressive part was how he figured out the number (he used a couple different peeking methods). What interested us as magicians was the less interesting aspect to normal folks.

If you watch the trailer you’ll see the trick gets a sort of descending “whoaaaaaaa” reaction each time it’s performed. That’s a decent mid-range kind of reaction. And that’s what my friend was getting from his performances as well. Because I like the trick, I’m going to try to come up with some presentational angle that will boost those reactions from good to great. I’ll let you know if I come up with anything.

Interestingly, the tile reveal got the strongest reaction when my friend had the tiles laying out from the beginning, and didn’t touch them throughout the trick until the reveal. That required him to force the two-digit number.

What does this tell us? I don’t really know. As I said, it was just a few performances total, and only one where the number was forced. So it’s hard to draw any strong conclusions from that. I’ll give it some more thought and borrow my friend’s set and see if I come up with any ideas worth sharing.


Hey Penguin Magic,

The Bestsellers on the right side of the home page haven’t been updating for weeks. Get your shit together.

[Update: Here’s the info from a Penguin insider known only as, “The Emperor.”]

There's a reason the bestsellers on Penguin haven't changed. Our web developer has updated the site so that the right side of the page is all-time best sellers, in no particular order. The left side of the page is what is trending.

It reflects this list:

https://www.penguinmagic.com/top10.php

All of this is helpful for new people that visit the site but the labels have not been updated.

For instance, when you click on See All Best Sellers on the right side of the page it takes you to the expanded top 10 list from the left side of the page.

Also, as I said, the list on the right is in no particular order, yet for some reason, it is numbered. The list on the left is in order, but it is not numbered. Go figure.

I agree, it's a mess and the whole team has made repeated complaints.

Well, folks, there’s your answer. God knows why this has been going on for weeks. It seems like changing the headers on these lists would take about 6 minutes for anyone who took one class of “Intro to HTML for Active Seniors” at the public library. But what do I know.


I got to see our JAMM #2 covergirl, Mallory, in a show called Magic Rocks at the Rochester Fringe Festival last week.

Here’s Mallory replicating Michael Ammar’s totally normal pose…

And here she is with the rest of the Magic Rocks crew.

I don’t think of myself as much of a stage illusion enthusiast. But it’s been so long since I’ve seen this type of show, that I really ended up having a good time, and it was great to see Mallory in action.


Poor Joshua Jay was scandalized after watching the Tom Hanks classic, Big, this past week.

Relax with the caps lock, sweetie. It’s just a movie. Poor, Josh, getting all riled up. Calling the local police precinct. “Pardon me. What are the laws involved with BEING INTIMATE with a 13-year-old who has made a magical wish on a carnival machine and his body has transformed to that of a 30-year-old man?”

I understand the concern. In the movie his mind is still that of a child, but they make it clear his cock and balls are all man.

I get it though, you don’t get involved in magic at a young age like Josh did and not have your antennae up for people trying to take advantage of kids. If Josh had grown up on the rim of Mt. Vesuvius, would I be surprised if he was a little on edge while watching Joe Versus the Volcano? No. That would make perfect sense.