Dear Jerxy Week - Day 5: Exposure vs. Art

In [Monday’s] post you suggested that trying to get a large following by doing magic on YouTube wasn’t compatible with a love of the art. As an aspiring YouTube content creator, I’m wondering why you think that is. I realize exposure/teaching tricks is part of the gig when you’re making magic YouTube videos, but I think that only serves to bring more people into the tent and make magic more popular. Who loves magic more than magicians? And they’re the ones who know the most secrets.  —SC

Yeah, I’m not someone who is completely against teaching tricks. I teach people tricks. And I recommended some channels that teach tricks as well.

Magic can be appreciated in many different ways. The two primary ways are:

1. As a way to generate mystery and astonishment.

2. As a demonstration of skill and cleverness.

These are both valid ways to enjoy magic. But they don’t work well together.

The real world is where magic thrives as a means to generate mystery and astonishment. Vanishing a silk one-on-one for a person in real life affects them much more intensely than watching a video of someone vanishing a silk on TikTok (everything else being equal). Simply because watching a trick online presents all sorts of other options for how the trick was done. Maybe it was video editing, maybe the silk dropped out of the frame, etc. In addition, you frequently have people writing right under the video about how the trick was done (or how they think it was done). There are probably some exceptions, but the vast majority of the time, a trick done in person should be more impossible/mysterious than the same trick done for the masses online.

Because it’s so easy to dismiss the “mystery” element online, the focus is often centered on the cleverness or skill or]f the performer—which frequently involves talking about secrets. If you want to gain a large following, you’re likely going to have to expose magic on some level to feed into that.

Do I think it’s good for magic? Well, it’s good for the aspect of magic that is about cleverness and skill. But no, it’s not great for the part of magic that is about mystery and astonishment.

I used to make the same argument the letter-writer makes: “Hey, magicians are the ones who like magic the most, and they know the most secrets. So clearly just knowing the secrets doesn’t harm magic.” As I became a better performer, I found this to be not true. Magicians are just more willing to sit through shitty magic than others. But laypeople get much more excited and wrapped up in the experience with a good performer.

Imagine a future where everyone knew the secret to every trick. You would have to admit that couldn’t possibly be good for magic as a delivery mechanism for mystery and astonishment.

Once you understand that, then you’ll understand why I’m not a proponent of unfettered access to magic secrets. I think there’s some level of teaching and exposure that is good and healthy for the art. And there’s some level where I think it has a deleterious effect on magic. I think everyone would agree with that—we just may have different opinions on where that line is.

The problem with this discussion is that there are people on both sides of the issue that are losers. There are losers who don’t want any secrets exposed because they want to horde them for themselves. This allows them to get the ego boost of knowing things other people don’t. And then there are losers who are desperate for attention so they expose tricks as a way of getting acknowledgment and validation because this is the only way people will notice them. So whichever side you’re on, you’re going to be aligning yourself with some dumb dildos.

I once had a debate with a guy online—this happened pre-blog. He had a YouTube channel where he just showed the secrets to tricks. I told him he was corny and his channel sucked and he said something like, “What? It’s just magic secrets. Secrets are just tools. They’re like carpenter’s nails. In and of themselves they’re not important. It’s what you do with them that’s important.”

That’s something a lot of people say: “The secrets aren’t important.” Okay, You can make that argument. But if you tell me nails aren’t important, and then you have a channel devoted to just looking at nails over and over, that doesn’t really go with the point you’re trying to make. Plus, nails might not be important on their own but we need them to build the house. So if you’re just sitting in the corner bending them like some dipshit, that’s going to bother the people who are trying to do something with the nails.

Again, I’m not totally anti-teaching/anti-exposure. I just think there’s more of an art to it than people think.

Ultimately, secrets are as valuable as we treat them. As I wrote in the recent newsletter:

“Magic secrets are like nudity. Women don’t need to wear high-necked dresses that go down to their ankles to maintain their modesty—only showing their bare skin to their husbands when they desire a child. But they also don’t need to have an OnlyFans account where you can see hi-def pictures of their spread labia for $4.99 a month. Nudity isn’t inherently important or valuable, but we can make it so by being a little coy with it. Magic secrets feel the same to me.”

Striving for YouTube success while valuing the art of magic is similar to wanting to be the most popular webcam model while placing a high value on romantic sensuality. In real life, you can completely captivate someone with a slow, seductive striptease. Online you’ll get more views by fucking a Rottweiler.

Dear Jerxy Week - Day 4: New to Mentalism

I’ve been recently getting serious about mentalism and trying to invent my own stuff, but I’ve run in to some problems (probably due to inexperience) so I figured I’d ask you some questions, if possible.

(1) How do you pick what method to use, or even invent new methods in the first place? I feel like I’m far better at thinking of premises than actually figuring out how to make what I want to happen happen.

(2) How do you know if something you’ve come up with will fool people? Maybe this is just an experience thing but I feel like there must be some sort of baseline test. —HF

---

(1) How do you pick what method to use, or even invent new methods in the first place?

You really answered this question in your first paragraph. The issue is a lack of experience. If you’re new to mentalism (or any branch of magic) before worrying about working on your own routines and methods, you need to familiarize yourself with what’s possible already. I’m not trying to stifle your creativity and suggest you only need to do what’s already been done. In fact, get a notebook and keep track of all the ideas you have so you can get back to them later. But before you start working on those ideas you need to invest a good amount of time learning as many methods and concepts as you can. If not, you’re going to end up spending a lot of time:

a) working on stuff that’s genuinely not possible

b) re-inventing stuff that’s already been created.

So you need to spend time getting your fundamentals in order. How much time? I have no clue. I was involved in magic for 15 years before I started regularly coming up with my own tricks. But I also wasn’t really trying to. If you haven’t been doing much mentalism to this point, spend a year or two focusing on the basics.

As you do this, if you’re naturally creative, you’ll start coming up with your own spin-off ideas from the basics. Most of these ideas will already have been thought of, but that’s okay, you’re giving yourself practice coming up with doable new ideas (even if they’re not new to the world, they’re new to you).

So you’re doing two things simultaneously. You’re keeping track of the ideas you have for tricks in a notebook and you’re learning and performing the basic methods and effects. Once you’re at that intermediate level of mentalism, then you can look back at your notebook of ideas you’ve been keeping and you can fit those presentations into the classic methods of which you now have a firm understanding. Or you might find out that there is no classic methodology that can be used to create the effect you imagined. At that point, you can either devote yourself to coming up with a brand-new method or resign yourself to the fact that if the greatest minds in magic haven’t cracked that nut yet, then maybe it’s uncrackable.

Again, I’m not trying to discourage you from creating a brand new method. It’s just not how I do it. The few times in my life I’ve come up with a completely new method for something, it came to me with no effort on my part. It just came to me out of the blue.

When it comes to creating something “new” in magic/mentalism, my focus is on premises and contexts and ways to incorporate magic into day-to-day life. And what allows me to focus on those things in a semi-productive way is a firm understanding of the basics.

(2) How do you know if something you’ve come up with will fool people?

The only way is to test it.

You might be uncomfortable showing something to someone without knowing if it will fool them or not. That’s understandable. Here’s what I’d recommend…

What you don’t want to say is, “Can I test this new magic trick I came up with on you?”

You don’t want it to sound like your ego is on the line. Depending on who you’re performing for, they might be hesitant to give you honest feedback.

Instead say something like, “Hey, can I try something with you? I was reading this article online about this concept in magic [or psychology, or gambling, or however you frame it]. I’m a little confused by it. I want to try it out and see if it really works.”

Now you’ve asked them for their feedback on this thing which you have nothing to do with. It’s just something you’re trying out.

At the end, when you get their feedback, they might say, “Well, don’t most people say ‘Rose’ when you ask them to name a common flower?”Or whatever weak idea your trick is based on.

Then you just say, “Exactly! That’s the thought that I had when I first read the article.” You see? It wasn’t your dumb idea. It was the article’s!

Road testing a new method is really the only way to know how it will play for others.

But you may not even need to get to that point if you can be really honest with yourself. This is not a skill many magicians possess. Or maybe it’s lacking in most humans—not just magicians. For example, when I see someone “levitating” a bill and it’s clearly wobbling on a tiny piece of thread, this seems to be someone who is dishonest with themselves. Because certainly if they imagine themselves without any of their magic knowledge watching that effect, they would assume it’s dangling from something they can’t quite see, yes? They wouldn’t be like, “I saw a dollar jiggling in the air and now I’m questioning the fundamentals of physics as we know it.” If you can put yourself in your layman’s brain and realize that it wouldn’t fool you, then it probably won’t fool others.

However, if you think it would fool you, that’s not good enough. When it comes to assessing the strength of a new method or a significant variation on an existing one, you can’t just trust your own judgment. You nee to test it. As famous birthday party clown, Richard Feynman, once said about this: "The first rule is you must not fool yourself. And you are the easiest one to fool."

Dear Jerxy Week - Day 3: ESP as EDC & the Moment of Transition

In your EDC post you said that one thing you wouldn’t carry around with you is ESP cards. Do you really think carrying around 5 cards in your wallet seems that unusual to normal people? I’m trying to get in the mindset of a non-magician and I can’t decide if I’d find that weird or not. —EB

Well, look, when compared to carrying around a Tenyo prop or a Hot Rod, five ESP cards is certainly not that strange. But compared to a dollar bill or a credit card, then yeah, it is kind of weird.

When getting into a trick in social situations, you want there to be as little friction as possible. The more unusual the props you have, the bigger the speed-bump you’re introducing en route to getting into the trick.

To a certain extent, the “weirdness” is going to depend on how they’re introduced. If you and I just meet at an airport lounge and I pull out my ESP cards and ask you to think of one, that’s going to seem socially clumsy to most people.

Instead, let’s imagine we’re chatting for a few minutes, and at some point during that discussion I mention an interest I have in magic or “powers of the mind” or something and it seems like you’re intrigued. Then—spurred on by your interest—I say, “Oh, wait… I’ve been carrying around these cards and trying a little experiment when I meet someone new. Can we try it?”

In that transition, I’ve somewhat “normalized” the cards. You know about my unusual interest. And I told you I carry around the cards for an experiment when I “meet someone new.” Well, you don’t meet someone new in your living room, for the most part. So, in that case, carrying them with me does make a little more sense.

So in the lead-up to getting into the effect, it’s possible to do some groundwork so a potentially unusual EDC item might seem a little more normal.

---

Let me take a brief detour…

Magicians have told me, “You’re overthinking things. Just show people a trick.” But just jumping into a trick isn’t my style. That moment of transitioning from a normal human interaction to one where they’re seeing some kind of trick is the moment of the greatest potential tension. And it can turn the other person off if it’s not handled well.

You’ve undoubtedly had similar situations in your life. You meet someone new in a casual situation and you’re really hitting it off—they’re charming and fun to talk to. And then there’s that moment where he says something like, “Yeah, man… that’s pretty crazy. Hey… do you think Jesus ever struggled with a decision like that?” And the interaction comes into focus. It’s no longer a fun conversation. You’re talking to someone who wants to convert you, or sell you something, or get you in bed. And the moment you realize that, there is a natural tendency to pull back from the interaction.

That can happen as you get into a trick as well. The pop-culture stereotype of the amateur magician is someone who is thirsty for attention and praise. If you don’t transition smoothly into your effect, then that’s what it’s going to feel like to people. So that’s why I don’t think it’s “overthinking” to be wary of that moment and the props you introduce.

Actually, I’m just coming to a realization…

When I meet people, I have a relatively easy time creating some rapport with them and having a good conversation. So my focus is on keeping that good energy flowing. But a lot of magicians are socially inept. Their inability to strike up a good conversation is why their pockets are jammed with 12 different tricks.

Ultimately, your personality is going to play a role regarding what tricks you carry and how you deploy them. In general, are you using magic to extend an interaction where you’ve already made a genuine connection? Or is it a safety net for when you’re feeling socially uneasy? In other words, do you tend to show people magic because you’re very comfortable with them, or because you’re uncomfortable with them? If it’s the latter, then maybe it matters less if you’re carrying around strange objects or stiffly transitioning into tricks. If you’re not coming from a great position to start with, you don’t really need to protect anything. You can be the guy who has a bunch of sponge rabbits in your pocket. That’s probably better than being the guy having a stilted conversation that’s going nowhere.

But if you’re a more social person naturally, and you tend to show people magic after you’ve built some rapport with them, you don’t want the transition into a trick to cause a hitch in that. You don’t want them to have that, “Hold up… is this guy actually some kind of weirdo?” moment.

---

Getting back to the original question…

In the early 2010s, I regularly used five marked ESP cards for a trick I would do socially.

During one performance, I either didn’t have the cards on me or I just wanted to try something different, and I ended up writing the symbols on balled-up paper napkins instead. The response to that performance was through the roof. It may have just been a coincidence, but since that time I’ve used the symbols written on paper or business cards or something like that when possible.

I’m a big believer in creating the props you’re using in the moment to whatever extent you can (for example). If you ever had a date where you made a meal with someone, you know that meal tastes better than the identical meal if you made it yourself at home and then brought it over. And certainly better than the same meal if it was pre-packaged at the grocery store.

So while having ESP cards in your wallet might not be the most ludicrous thing ever, if you can do the trick in a seemingly more offhand manner, that could be to everyone’s benefit.

Dear Jerx Week - Day 2: Mismade

Matthew Wright has an interesting new T&R coming out where the card ends up in a mismade condition. Have you ever tested a mismade T&R compared to a traditional one? To me they feel like different plots. —JR

I see what you’re saying. The meaning of “restore” is to put something back to its original condition. If, in the end, you have some jacked-up frankenstein card, then you’ve reconnected the pieces, but you haven’t “restored” the card. Not that that’s a bad trick, it’s just a different trick.

We’ve never officially tested a mismade vs a normal restoration. If I had to guess, I think magicians appreciate the mismade style of restoration more than laypeople do.

I’ve played around with Shawn Farquhar’s Torn 2 Pieces on and off for years now. As a magician, I like it a lot and use it in certain situations (more info in a future post). But the reactions I get to it are more along the lines of, “Isn’t that clever,” rather than one of being truly blown away by what they see. It’s probably because there’s something inherently cerebral and “amusing” about the end-product. It’s more of a “thinker” than a “feeler.”

---

When it comes to mismade restorations, I think you have to weigh one important factor: How convincing is the destruction of the object in the first place?

If you stood with me on the sidewalk and watched a tornado destroy your house, which would impress you more:

1 - I have you turn your back to the house and moments later I turn you back around and the house is just like it was.

or

2 - I have you turn your back to the house and moments later I turn you back around and the pieces of the house are reassembled in a mish-mashed manner. The roof is on the bottom. The chimney is sticking out the side. The windows are facing the sky.

I would say that without question #1 is more impressive. We saw the tornado tear through town. We saw it destroy your house. If the pieces of the house come together in any form… that’s incredible. But, anything less than the house coming back together as it was is… less than.

Okay, but now imagine the destruction of the house isn’t 100% convincing. Let’s say we’re looking at the house, and I have a large screen raised between us and the house. Then a light is projected behind the house and we see a silhouette of the house on the screen. Then we see the silhouette of a bulldozer knocking the house down.

If I now shout out a Franz Harary style “Do It!” and have them drop the screen and your house is “restored” to its original condition, that’s not that impressive. If your audience has half a brain, they won’t say, “He magically fixed the house!” They’ll say, “It was never destroyed in the first place.” Because they were never truly convinced of it.

But, imagine if after we watched the silhouetted destruction, I had the backlight cut off so the shadow of the house was gone. Then I made some gestures in the air like I was “rebuilding” the house with my hands. Then the screen was whipped away and the house was restored in some funky mismade way. That would be stronger than just seeing the normal house. Because—whether the audience believes the destruction was real or not—you have the transformation of the house from its normal condition to the mismade condition.

---

That being said, I feel the most magical effect would involve a thoroughly convincing destruction and a restoration back to its original condition.

But there are times you might be going for something slightly different.

I really like the logic I first heard in Michael Ammar’s Albo Card routine. I don’t remember his exact words, but it’s something about the fleeting nature of the magic moment. And how, if you restore the card for them, they might be amazed, but eventually the only tangible thing that remains of the magic is a normal card. So restoring it the wrong way around creates a piece of magic that lives on. I think that’s an interesting premise. And that’s what I use when I do the Albo Card routine.

---

Update: The full trailer is up now.

Apparently the spectator signs the card after it’s been torn, and all the pieces are held together in a little bundle by the magician while they sign them. That’s a little too cozy and controlled for my style. In a longer video on the trick, Matthew says it’s so convincing because they can see the torn edges when they sign the card. While that’s true, they can also see the torn edges once they fold the restored card back into quarters. What was a “convincer” while they were signing the cards now just points to the method once the card is in their hands at the end.

I have no doubt this will fool many people. But because I’m not a huge fan of mismade restorations and the specific handling required for this trick, it’s just not for me.

Dear Jerxy Week - Day 1: YouTube

I have a big backlog of questions in my email. So this week I’m going to burn through one each day, now through Friday.

Are there any youtube reviewers or other magic channels that you follow? —KB

Short answer: Nope.

Longer answer: I don’t subscribe to any magic channels. The magic channels that are made for laypeople are completely unwatchable to me. David Blaine turned the camera on the audience and it was revolutionary. But now so much of it is just obviously fake reactions. Like, look at this dipshit who has coached people to react to a trick that they can’t see from where they’re sitting.

Magic is already fake. Watching people fake reaction to fake tricks makes zero sense to me as a form of entertainment.

As far as the youtube channels that are geared towards other magicians, I don’t have any that I regularly watch, but I’ll check some out from time to time.

I find most of the magic review shows kind of useless. I don’t get the sense that many of them have actually tried the products they’re reviewing. They don’t seem to have many insights that come from performing the trick.

The reviewers who are more deferential to the magic companies seem to get more products to review. So it incentivizes reviewers to be positive. I don’t mind positive reviews. I have a monthly newsletter that is only positive reviews. But the reviews in that newsletter come from digging through new and old releases and trying things out and seeing what people are responding to. Not from a quid pro quo with the magic company.

A review channel with live performances has the potential to be the most useful, but I don’t think it helps when you’re performing for the same one or two people each time. First, it burns them out on magic. Second, they learn their “role” is to be the astonished person. So it can be difficult to tell if they’re genuinely very fooled or if that’s just what they think is being asked of them.

Ideally a review show would have live performances performed for random people. Of course, that would be a ton of work, which is why nobody (that I know of ) does it that often.

So yeah, I’m not a huge magic review consumer. If I want someone else’s opinion, I'll usually look for some sort of consensus on the Magic Cafe.

Here are some channels I check out now and again:

Lloyd Barnes - Lloyd is a super creative guy and a master at creating gimmicks that produce amazing looking effects. I feel he’s in a bit of a difficult spot because I believe he has a real love for the art, and I think he’d also love to have a really big social-media following. I’m not sure those things go together. To get a following on social media you usually have to expose tricks (even if you don’t, people will do so in the comments). Is there anyone who has built a big following just performing tricks? I don’t really know.

I think Lloyd does his best to walk the line. Yes, he “exposes” a lot of tricks on his channel, but from what I’ve seen, it’s mainly tricks he’s created himself. And often they're tricks that were almost designed to be exposed. They might require a set-up that would be difficult to get into in an actual performance, or a gimmick that wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny in the real world.

I enjoy checking out his site from time to time to see the work of someone who is creative in a way that I’m not at all.

Craig Petty - If there’s a trick you’re interested in and you want to see a performance of the trick other than the official demo, Craig’s youtube is a good resource for that. Craig reviews a few tricks a week and almost always demos the trick (or his son does). Whether you agree with Craig’s take on a trick or not, getting an un-cut performance that’s not officially sanctioned by the people putting out the trick is valuable. So searching his archive for a trick your considering is a good way of getting another perspective on it.

Murphy’s Magic - To keep up with the mainstream new releases.

They also post an effect on Saturday for free although I haven’t taken a deep dive into them yet. The control I mention in the last post is great. Lloyd Barnes’ effect from this weekend where he turns sugar into instant coffee is fun too.

Unbiased Magic Reviews - I don’t really have similar taste to this guy, and our performance styles and personalities could not be any more different. But he puts more thought into his reviews than most and he digs deeper into more obscure resources. So even though we’re not necessarily on the same wavelength, I still enjoy hearing his thoughts and will check out his channel from time to time.

Carl Irwin - I recently came across Carl’s channel after featuring a couple of his magic offering’s in the newsletter this past year as well as reviewing his $TNR effect earlier this year. I’ve only watched 8 or 10 of his videos so far. They’re not the type of thing you’re going to binge. Carl has a number of longer-form videos on effects and techniques that are of interest to him. He’s not chasing viewers and trying to do what’s popular. I think that’s probably what I enjoy most about his videos. Watching someone discuss their areas of interest is soothing to me. Watching people discuss what they think other people want to hear about turns me off. His philosophy doesn’t exactly overlap with mine regarding everything in magic. He’s more focused on traditional performing situations. But I don’t mind that. I probably prefer it. I like hearing about the paths people are on with their magic regardless of if it has anything to do with what I’m writing about. As long as they’ve given it some thought and they’re just not thirstily following some trend.

There you have it. If you know of any other worthwhile youtube channels, especially any niche ones with a unique approach to things, let me know.

Two Dope Freebies

Here are two free items that you should definitely check out if you haven’t yet..

The Novara Control by Ollie Mealing

This card control from Ollie Mealing is really great. The selection is tossed into a spread of cards. The cards are gathered up, and the selection is on the bottom of the deck. I think this looks just about perfect. It’s very casual and hands-off (to an extent) and relatively easy to perform.

If you gather the cards inward and pull the deck off the table towards yourself, you could let the bottom card flip off your thumb into your lap and hand the deck out for shuffling (leaving you free to fold the card into quarters, stuff it in a wallet, or whatever).

This would have fooled me. Not that I’m some genius or something. But I usually have a good radar for something happening. Watching this control, my radar wouldn’t have gone off.

TimedOut by Marc Kerstein

TimedOut is an iPhone only app that can be used as an “index” of up to six outs. These outs can be something that was apparently written/drawn in a drawing app, or they can be photos or screenshots. The out can even even appear in your real camera roll (back dated up to a week ago).

You could, for example, tell someone your baby is demonstrating psychic powers. Ask them to think of an ESP symbol, and then show them that you took a picture of your child a few days ago, and smeared in feces on the wall near their crib is the ESP symbol they’re thinking of. “I need to smother him with a pillow before his powers become to great.”

The cool thing about TimedOut is that you don’t have to touch the phone after the out has been identified. So the phone can be on their hand, face down. And then you could… I don’t know…ask them to imagine blood spurting out of one of the holes in their body: eyes, ears, nose, mouth, anus, penis or bergina (spelling?). When they turn over the phone, there is a photoshop mock-up of them with blood shooting out of that orifice.

And, unlike the examples I’ve given here, TimedOut can also be used for effects that aren’t related to stuff coming out of people’s bodies.

You don’t need an Apple Watch or another phone or a remote control or anything along those lines. The phone is out of your hands and you don’t touch it again. There’s no voice recognition or anything like that.

TimedOut is a cleverer version of the Draw Cycle function on the Jerx App. It was, in fact, what inspired Draw Cycle. Draw Cycle is a simpler idea and you can use more outs, but it requires you to be holding the phone and be able to see the screen. TimedOut has definite advantages and it’s fucking free!! Grab it..

E.D.A.S.

I’ve received a few emails asking about the first trick I’m releasing that I mentioned in Monday’s post.

There’s not too much to say at this point, but it’s going to be the first in a series that will be known as E.D.A.S.

E.D.A.S. is a combination of a couple of different ideas.

In the past, I’ve written about the Wonder Room concept. A “Wonder Room” is any type of permanent display that can lead into a performance. In Book #4 I wrote about 10 or so different types of displays you might have in your home. One of the simplest ones was a display of different decks of cards. If you have some interesting decks out on display, then perhaps someone you’re with will be drawn to one and from there you can segue into a trick. This is, perhaps, the simplest “Wonder Room” concept, it can be taken in much more interesting directions as covered in that book.

I mentioned in a previous post about a friend of mine who has every deck on display stacked in some way so someone can bring him any deck and he can immediately get into a very stack-heavy trick. While laypeople do understand the idea that a deck can be prearranged in some way, I think they’re less likely to think this randomly chosen deck is prearranged. So this is a way to take advantage of people’s belief that you probably wouldn’t go to the effort to have dozens of different decks prearranged in some way.

I had my deck display set up in this manner for a couple of years. And I would have people go grab a deck that looked interesting to them. Then, if I felt like it, I could go right into the trick that the deck was stacked for (and if not, I could go into something else).

But what I noticed was that people were rarely drawn to anything that looked like a normal deck of playing cards. So if I had 40 decks in my display, they were almost always bringing me one of the same four or five boxes that seemingly housed something more unusual than a standard deck of cards. “What are these ones?” they’d ask, and bring me over something unusual. They wanted the story behind the cards and why I had them.

For example, I love the cool mid-century aesthetic of the Fulton line of playing cards. But as much as I like them, the average layperson isn’t drawn to them asking themselves, “What’s this all about?” They know the story behind those decks already. They’re just playing cards.

Noticing the sort of decks people were drawn to, I began to consider the idea of stacking my display with only such decks.

It would be a different kind of Wonder Room deck display. Instead of a bunch of regulation decks of playing cards, each stacked for a different trick. It would be a bunch of interesting decks of cards of some atypical type. Each deck could prompt the question, “Why do you have this?” The decks wouldn’t just be set for a trick, the decks would be set for a story.

E.D.A.S - Every Deck A Story

So someone might go over to my display and pick out a deck of stock photography samples, and I could tell them the story of the subliminal influence of visual imagery that this guy demonstrated for me with these cards. And we could try it out and see just how imperceptibly they could be manipulated too.

Or they might pick up a deck of children’s flashcards and ask me why I have them. And I can tell them the story of how I first learned the basics of mind reading. And how, just like when someone is learning to read words we break it down to the fundamentals, you essentially do the same thing when learning to read thoughts. These cards are a way to practice beginner-level mind reading, do they want to give it a shot?

Or perhaps they’re drawn to a raggedy-looking nudey deck of cards. I can tell the story of finding those cards in the woods when I was a kid. And how normally I wouldn’t hang onto something like that into my adulthood. But there’s something really unusual about these cards.

The trick I’m coming out with later this year is going to be the first in the Jerx: Every Deck A Story series. Each deck is going to be something other than a standard deck of regulation playing cards. With the tricks I’ll be releasing, as well as other effects that are commercially available that fall into this category, you could have a whole array of these unusual decks. And rather than having a display of dozens of decks of cards which you use to do random tricks. You’ll have a display of dozens of different stories. And each one will allow you to pull your friend into the story by demonstrating the particular weird phenomena that’s only possible with these unusual cards.