Mailbag #85

/

I was wondering if the next book has a theme to it? Or if you could give any information about it? —SS

Not really. I covered this in the introduction to the last book…

📙My previous books were loosely organized around a central theme. My first book described my basic philosophy towards performing magic. My second book was about introducing “emotional elements” into your presentations. My third book covered my approach to mentalism. And my fourth book focused on “extra-presentational,” world-building techniques that serve to add depth and connections to my performances. 

Those previous books covered the fundamental elements of my style of performing. And at this moment there isn’t really any more groundwork I need to lay. 

Now, I could pretend that each year I have some grand epiphany that there’s some subject I just need to write about. “Oh my god, everyone. I just realized I have a lot to say about Himber Wallets!” And then you’re stuck with some fucking 200 page book about Himber Wallets to read through. But I wouldn’t subject either of us to that.

So this book has no theme. Well, it has no theme other than, “This is the stuff I’ve been working on over the past couple years.” And that’s the plan for this series of books. I will release one every 18 months or so looking at the material I’ve created since the last in the series. 

If and when I do have enough material for a book that’s more narrowly focused, then that will be released outside of this series of books as a stand-alone thing.

So that’s the plan. 📙

And that’s still the plan.

The “reward books”—that is, the books that come as a reward for supporting at the highest tier for a full season—will continue to not be focused around a particular theme, but instead around a time period.

Other books, that I may or may not get to, that are more focused, will be available to supporters at all levels when the time comes.

That being said, there is something of a theme to some of the material in this book. I noticed as I was assembling the pieces that there was a lot of card magic in the book.

Card magic tends to be very reductive. It tends to come down to what’s happening with your fingers and the deck. And it doesn’t just come down to that methodologically, it comes down to that presentationally too. “Here’s what my hands can do with this deck of cards.” Several effects in the book are my attempt at making card tricks more expansive. It wasn’t an intended theme when I started the book, but it came up time and time again in the routines I was creating during this time.

I don’t like talking too much about what’s in the books, because the upcoming book essentially sold out a year ago and trying to hype the book at this point seems stupid.

Are you open to being sponsored by a magic company? Or are you already? I notice you usually link to Penguin on your site and in the newsletter. If a new magic company was willing to give you a monthly stipend would you be willing to link them instead? [Disclosure: I’m part of a team behind a new magic retail site.]—SM

No, I’m not sponsored by anyone. I usually link to Penguin or Vanishing Inc. because those are the companies I use most often. Generally, I look up the product on both sites and then just link to whichever site is offering it cheaper. That’s the extent of the thought I put into that.

Would I link somewhere else if they were sponsoring the site? Yeah, of course. But I doubt it’s going to happen. They would have to be okay with me continuing to write whatever I feel like and I don’t think that’s what a sponsor would be looking for.

I guess you’ve seen this but isn’t Airprint your idea called The Look of Love? Have they nicked this idea or done it with your blessing?—KF

Vanishing Inc. sent out an email for the SPIX app (I guess the names “beaner” and “wetback” were already taken), and I got a few emails suggesting that the “Airprint” feature of the app was based on my trick, “The Look of Love.”

It’s definitely similar in the sense that you ask for an object and then a color and you use a mini photo printer in order to generate a photo of the predicted object in that color.

Airprint is pretty much that basic idea but stripped of the charm and the context I gave it. Presentationally it’s 10 steps backwards, but as a tool, it may be useful (although it only works on a couple of discontinued printers, which is not ideal).

The Look of Love was originally written up on this site in 2016. It also appeared in a Penguin Magic Monthly at some point.

The way I do it now, which requires no outside help and no special app was written up in this post in 2020.

(I never did end up trying out the printer I mentioned in that post. If anyone else did, let me know.)

I don’t think the idea was “nicked,” nor did I give it my blessing (not that they needed my blessing). The French Twins did contact me when the app was about to be released to ask about the Look of Love and possibly mentioning it in the instructions, but I don’t know if they did or not.

Influence Month: Summary

/

There was a trick I used to do growing up. I’m not sure where it comes from. I’ve googled around for it but haven’t come up with anything. And now that Max Maven is dead, I don’t know who to go to for this kind of thing.

The way it worked was this. You’d write down this random code on a piece of paper.

23b692708

Then you’d have someone pick a card, for example, the 8 of Spades.

Then you’d show them the mirror reflection of the number you wrote down.

I guess I shouldn’t say, “for example, the 8 of Spades,” because obviously, that’s the only card it works with.

Let’s take a look at this trick through the lens of some of this month’s posts.

The Bombardment Principle - Tells us that if we’re doing a straightforward influence premise, then we’d want this reversed writing cue to just be one of many that have been put there to “guide” the spectator.

The Fleeting Reframe - I ask you to stare in a mirror for two minutes while I repeat a “special code” for your subconscious. I read the code off a piece of paper while you look in the mirror. After the two minutes is up, I say, “Quick, let’s try something.” I have you look at the faces of a deck of cards and then select one blindly. You picked the 8 of Spades. I reveal my prediction to show that I knew you’d pick the 8 of Spades.

I then explain to you how it really worked. “Staring into our own face in a mirror is known to lower our psychological defenses for a moment because we’re looking at someone who presents no danger. Because of this, it makes us especially susceptible to influence in those moments because our guard is down.

“Now, me reading the code actually had nothing to do with the influence I was trying to use on you. It was actually those couple of times when I adjusted your head and the post-it in my hands was briefly visible in the mirror. Look….”

I hold the post-it up to the mirror to show the reflection looks like the 8 of Spades.

The Holmesian Reframe - After asking you to drink some tea I request your help with a little experiment I want to try.

I’ve written down some notes on a sheet of paper from a private website my friend let me access.

My notes say:

Username: TennisStar19
Password: 23b692708

Step 1: Spread a deck of cards toward the participant.

Step 2: Ask them to stare at the cards as you pass them from hand to hand. As they do this, they should count backward from 100 by threes.

Step 3: Spread the cards face down and allow them to touch either one.

I go through this process with you and before you touch the card, I say, “Just understand there is a particular card I want you to take. Consider everything that’s happened and touch the one you think I want you to touch.”

You touch one. It turns out to be the 8 of Spades.

“This is fascinating. If I was doing this as a magic trick I’d pull out a prediction that says ‘The Eight of Spades,’ but I didn’t bother with that. That tea that you had earlier was Lapsang Souchong tea. It’s an exotic black tea that’s smoked over a pinewood fire. It was actually Sherlock Holmes’ favorite tea. But here’s the crazy thing… The Sherlock Holmes stories were written in the late 1800s. Then 80 years later at some university in Texas, they were studying the effects of different drinks on different cognitive abilities. And they found out this one particular type of tea just happened to have a strong effect on people’s perception and deduction skills. It works more on a subconscious level. So it was, like, the perfect choice to make as Sherlock Holmes’ favorite tea. But it was just by chance.”

I point out the light behind me, and how when I was reading the instructions, their mind picked up a clue I planted for them: the image of the “password” reversed.

(And, ideally, there would be some other “clues” you picked up on as well.)

The Simulation Reframe - After having you touch a card from a spread of cards (let’s say…hmmm…the 8 of Spades), I explain how some believe our choices are reflected in the world around us as we “author” the simulation we’re stuck in. I start looking around for evidence of this. Look… the cord to my iron is looped around on itself forming a black eight on the floor. There’s got to be more… I move some stuff around on shelving behind me as I look. A book falls to the floor. David Spade’s autobiography. I flip through it but nothing jumps out. “Wait… David Spade. Day-vid Spade. Eight of Spades. It’s so obvious.” I continue to look, with your help.

I check out the receipt on the table.

Then I look at the doodle on the back.

“Is there an 8 in there maybe? I don’t see it. Wait… look at the batch number from the opposite side.”

The nice thing about the simulation reframe is that you can have the tiniest little things be “reveals” of the simulation premise. Things that never would be fathomable as being part of any “influence.”

This is the final post for the month. I will return on Monday, April 3rd.

Supporters will receive the next newsletter on Saturday, April 1st.

And, of course, I’ll be celebrating National Peanut Butter and Jelly day with you in spirit on April 2nd.

Later. ✌️

Mailbag #84

/

If you just met someone and you were going to show them three tricks over the course of the time you were spending together, would you perform your strongest trick first? Save it for the end? Put the weakest trick first or in the middle? What would be your plan of attack? —TT

Okay, assuming this is someone I’m meeting once and will never see again, then I would start with the weakest effect and build to the strongest. There’s no reason, in a social performing circumstance, not to build, build, build in intensity.

Traditional structure would be to start with your second strongest and end with your strongest. That maybe makes sense for your restaurant gig or something else where people are watching your “show.” But in a casual performing circumstance you don’t want a noticeable dip from one trick to the next.

If I was meeting someone for the first time and I knew I’d be seeing them again, then I wouldn’t really waste any particularly great tricks on them. There’s no need to. A good trick will get the reaction of a great trick from someone who hasn’t seen much magic.

Instead, if I was going to show someone three tricks over the course of an interaction (which would be pretty rare) I would probably do three good tricks.

I might start with a good card trick - People are familiar with card tricks. But you’d want something that takes it up a notch from what they’ve seen their Uncle Ted do.

Then a good visual trick - Something with coins, rubber bands, rings, or something like that.

Then a good mentalism trick - This takes things in a more personal direction and has the potential for some more interesting presentational elements.

The temptation is to do your strongest material whenever possible. As a social performer, that’s a notion you need to put out to pasture. Or you’ll just be doing weaker and weaker material for people over time. It’s terrible structure for long-term performing. So start good, not amazing. I’d really recommend one or two tricks for someone you’ll see again soon. Leave them wanting more and set yourself up nicely for the next time you see them.

Tell me if you think I’m crazy or not. Remember the whole debacle with Craig Petty and Michael Weber? I think it might have been fake. STAY WITH ME.

It seems like with many of Craig Petty’s recent releases there has been some sort of controversy:

Quantum Deck - Whether it was examinable or was the advertising deceptive
EDCeipt - Whether it was original
Lucky Lotto - Was the advertising deceptive

These tricks come out and generate a lot of conversation with people bashing or defending Craig. But all the while the thread stays at the top of the Magic Cafe’s Latest and Greatest section for weeks. Some people go overboard attacking Craig and then he gets to post a video on youtube where he gets to play the victim.

It’s a pattern. If you look at the thread for EDCeipt you’ll see there are not many posts from people who are performing it and enjoying it. If it was just a thread with those people it would be a couple of pages long. But because of all the hubbub it became dozens of pages long. I’m sure that sold a lot more than a thread that was short and disappeared soon after.

Lucky Lotto is such a mediocre trick that it doesn't even elicit a reaction in the demo video. He has to ask them to applaud. But because of the controversy, it has many more posts than a number of good tricks. Nobody would be talking about it if it weren't for the controversy.

I bet an average trick that people are debating about will sell more than an average trick that is simply forgotten. That is why I believe the EDCeipt thing was fabricated. I believe the Weber incident was planned and then spiraled out of control. —TS

You wrote: “Tell me if you think I’m crazy or not.”

You’re fucking crazy.

I don’t believe Weber and Petty planned anything.

And, more generally, I don’t believe Craig releases effects and adds controversy to them in order to get people talking about them. If he did do that, he might be a goddam genius, though.

I don’t disagree with your thesis that if a product has 2 pages of positive comments amidst 40 other pages of debate, then it probably sells better than one with just 2 pages of positive comments. But again, I don’t think he’s doing that on purpose. If he is, he’s my new favorite magician.

You’ve been writing about your journey through magic for almost 8 years now. I’m hoping the answer is “no” but do you have an end date for the site in mind?—NF

Not really. I take it about a year or so at a time. I’m not running out of stuff to write about. But the time involved is always a factor. Working on the site, newsletter, books, etc., is a big investment of time. Not just writing, but creating, and trying out different ideas. The supporters of the site make it worthwhile, but it also means turning down work that is more lucrative and easier. At some point I may have to shift my priorities some, but not in the immediate future.

Dustings# 82

/

Regarding Wednesday’s post on the Pseudo Chatbot, I did actually ask ChatGPT the prompt that I used as an example in that post. Here’s how that went…

“I want you to describe the configuration of a deck of cards that has been shuffled and mixed face-up into face-down cards by a 38-year-old woman named Carmen from Tupper Lake, New York.”

🤖As an AI language model, I cannot directly observe Carmen from Tupper Lake, New York shuffling and mixing a deck of cards face-up into face-down cards. However, I can provide a general description of a shuffled deck of cards that has been mixed face-up into face-down cards.
Assuming Carmen has used a standard 52-card deck, a shuffled and mixed deck of cards would likely have a random arrangement of face-up and face-down cards. This could result in any number of possible configurations, depending on the specific shuffling technique used and the number of times the deck has been shuffled.
Some possible outcomes include:
  • Some cards may be entirely face-up or face-down, while others may have a mix of both orientations.
  • The order of the cards may be completely randomized, meaning that cards of the same suit or value may be scattered throughout the deck.
  • There may be clumps of face-up or face-down cards, with alternating sections of each orientation.
  • Depending on the shuffling technique used, there may be some cards that are more likely to be face-up or face-down than others.
Overall, the configuration of a shuffled deck of cards that has been mixed face-up into face-down cards is likely to be unpredictable and unique to each individual shuffle.🤖

Super helpful as per usual, ChatGPT

By the way, if you’re writing a long prediction in that fake chatbot, and you find it easier to write on a computer than on your phone, just write it in a draft in your email, then go into your email on your phone and copy and past it over.

This may be obvious, but someone asked about it, so I figured I’d pass that along for anyone else who needs the tip.

In my March 9th post about two influence tools, I mentioned the Infamous release and said you may have a hard time finding it because it didn’t seem to be available at most magic retailers.

I know have a couple of options for you:

  1. You can get it from MagicWorld.co.uk.

  2. Or if you want to support the creator directly (which is always appreciated) you can reach Daniel Medows by contacting him here. He has the cards/DVD combo as well as just the download if that’s all you need/want.

As mentioned in that post, this is a helpful tool that can be part of pretty much any trick where you’re forcing a word, concept, drawing, etc.

I will often have the cards out and “test” someone with them earlier in the night, and then bring it back around to those cards and do the reveal hours later.

The fact that this is something you can add onto many influence effects, as well as the different reframes I’ve written about here, makes it particularly useful

Joshua Jay likes to portray himself as an all-powerful wizard, genius of the magical arts, master of deception and the human mind.

The real Joshua Jay?

Can’t quite figure out hyperlinks.

Do I have any tax experts reading this? Tax time is coming soon. I go to a cafe most days of the week. The reason I go there is because it brings me a stream of new people into my life to interact with and it allows me to test out ideas on new people rather than burning out my friends and family on magic.

Can I write off my coffee??

If I was renting a performance space, I’d be able to write that off. In this case, isn’t the coffee my rental cost for being able to use the cafe as a testing ground?

Influence: The Simulation Reframe

/

This is a reframe that I’ve only dipped a toe into so far, but I think it has promise.

The idea is that instead of them being influenced by something outside of them, it’s their choices that are altering their surroundings.

The notion here is that they are authoring the simulation and their thoughts are becoming manifest in the world around them.

Yes, I realize this is a bit of a wild idea. But people like crazier presentations. I’ve never met someone who was like, “I’m sorry, I’m not interested in being immersed in some fantastical story. Instead, I’d like to hear about the difference between a magician and a mind reader.”

So, as an example, let’s imagine a standard influence effect.

We’re at a bed and breakfast for someone’s wedding weekend.

I ask to try something with you and I spread through the faces of a deck of cards. Then I have you touch the back of any card. You pull it out and look at it.

I show you my prediction: “You Will Choose the Ace of Diamonds.”

My prediction is right.

I then say, “You see, I didn’t actually predict the Ace of Diamonds. In reality, I influenced you to take it. When I spread the cards, your subconscious picked up on the location of every card. And when I told you I was going to have you select any card—I don’t know if you’ll remember but I sort of gestured towards my chest. And when I spread the cards toward you at the beginning, it was in a way that put the portrait behind me just in your line of site. What’s on the chest of the woman in that portrait?”

A large single diamond shape. Ah! You were influenced to choose the Ace of Diamonds by this well placed portrait.

With the Simulation Reframe, I would first start by telling you the idea some people have that we’re living in a simulation and our choices and thoughts end up creating the simulation around us. And what we think of as “coincidences” are really those decisions and thoughts being made manifest in the world. The simulation has to essentially re-write itself after every choice we make. It’s the reverberations of those choices that we’re seeing in these little coincidences.

I show you the deck of cards and then have you touch the back of any card. I ask you if you want that card, the one above it, the one below it, or another one altogether. Whatever you decide I slide that card out for you and show you what would have happened if you’d chosen the card above it or below it or whatever. You turn the card over and it’s the Ace of Diamonds.

“Okay,” I say, “Now we look for evidence that your choice has altered the world in some way.”

For instance, I find a pad that I had been doodling on earlier and notice that some of the lines look like an Ace of Diamonds if you look at it just right.

I see that the video of sports highlights on my laptop is paused on Anthony David. “AD?” I ask. “Could this be one or am I reaching?”

Finally, you notice the large diamond on the necklace of the woman in the picture.

The fun thing about this reframe is that instead of me reciting a list of things that supposedly influenced you, we’re searching around together to find these things. They’re as much a surprise to me, apparently, as they are to you.

And, as far as stories go, “The universe is changing itself based on your whims.” Is perhaps the exact opposite of, “These outside factors are influencing you.”

Now, imagine sometime later I ask you to send me a video you shot on your phone of me doing some stupid shit when we first got to the bed and breakfast. You send it along and I take a look at it on my phone.

“Holy shit…,” I murmur, “Check this out. Remember that thing we did with the cards at the bed and breakfast? Remember we saw the Ace of Diamonds in a few things around the room and there was that portrait of the woman with a large diamond-shaped pendant? Look at that portrait before you selected the card.”

You look. She just has a ribbon around her neck, no pendant.

Proof that your choice altered the universe.

This is just an example, not something I would necessarily suggest doing exactly this way. But if you wanted to, it would just involve sneaking a framed portrait into the place you’re staying. It doesn’t need to be wall-sized. Just something you can put on a desk or end table. These sorts of things aren’t uncommon in small boutique hotels or B&Bs.

First plant the one without the reveal in it when you first get there and, at some point, have the person you’re going to perform for take a picture or video of you with that image in the background. Then, when you have some alone time, swap the image out for the one with the reveal in it.

As I said, this is just an example. You can reframe many, if not most, influence effects in this manner. For this presentation, I think a few “reveals” of the information are all you need.

Pseudo Chatbot

/

Taking a break from the influence posts today to mention a new feature in the Jerx App that will be available in an update either as you read this or very soon after.

This is an idea that came in from supporter Dustin W. in an email where he wrote:

ChatGPT and Bard and other AI programs are a great premise for a prediction if you want to dodge the psychic claim.

I think this is a very solid idea.

Imagine it as part of a Shuffle-Bored presentation.

You bring up an AI chat page on your phone. It’s not one of the standard ones. It’s a dark-web-only version or some proprietary site that you have to have an invitation to be able to use.

You enter a prompt that says something like:

I want you to describe the configuration of a deck of cards that has been shuffled and mixed face-up into face-down cards by a 38-year-old woman named Carmen from Tupper Lake, New York.

The AI shoots out a reply like:

🤖The configuration of a deck of cards that has been shuffled and mixed face-up into face-down cards by a 38-year-old woman named Carmen from Tupper Lake, New York is likely to be:
24 face-up cards
Of the face-up cards, eight of them will be black.
All the black face-up cards are clubs.
This is the likely configuration of a deck of cards that has been shuffled and mixed face-up into face-down cards by a 38-year-old woman named Carmen from Tupper Lake, New York. 
My mistake, I just noticed that one of the black face-up cards is actually the two of spades.🤖

You could scroll the page so that the Two of Spades punchline isn’t revealed until you want it to be.

Of course, this could be used as a reframe for any kind of prediction effect that forces the spectator into one outcome.

So I shot that idea over to Marc Kerstein and he has added it to the Jerx App. In the settings for the chat function you just enter whatever you want the AI to spit out and regardless of what you write in the prompt during performance, it will just shoot out whatever canned response you have.

It does it in the “typing” style similar to many AI chatbots.

What happens if your friend wants to ask it another question?

Additional prompts generate this message:

You have no remaining data credits. Credits renew in 30 days.

Aww, too bad. Sorry, friend.

Don’t call it like your “magic chatbot” or something corny like that. This is just some strangely accurate underground chat program that you have a special invite to.

If they come to you 30 days later and ask you to ask another question to the chatbot, just say, “Ah, they made that thing illegal. I wasn’t even really supposed to show it to you.”

Right now it’s very simple to operate. Just enter the wording you would like it to shoot out and it will do so. You could make it as simple as having it say, The 3 of Clubs, and then asking it in performance, '“What card did my friend pick?” Although when it’s that simple I think it will hardly have much of an impact. The idea of adding names and ages and locations into the sample question/answer mentioned above is to suggest that maybe there’s some sort of interesting calculation happening in the background. But you can do it however you like.

If I feel there’s demand for it, I may ask Marc to make it a little more complex, with multiple saved responses and possibly the ability to enter part of the output secretly during the process of entering the URL. That way it wouldn’t just need to be used for forces, but could also be used for free choices. (Similar to what we did with the Wisdom of Crowds word reveal that’s also in the app). But I may just keep things simple with it.

Influence: The Holmesian Reframe

/

This is a very simple reframe that takes a trick out of the realm of “influence” altogether. It’s certainly similar to ideas explored by others, but I think there is a way to do it that makes it feel more legitimate and less like just hollow taolk.

The premise of the Holmesian Reframe is that they’re not being influenced by these subtle cues that have been placed around them, instead, they are subconsciously taking in and perceiving these cues. Their mind wasn’t swayed by some little thing off in the distance. Instead, their mind keenly picked up on that thing.

We have Spectator as Magician tricks and Spectator as Mind Reader tricks. This reframe is, essentially, Spectator as Sherlock Holmes.

This requires a bit more explanation for the participant because the idea is that they’re absorbing this information and processing it subconsciously. If you don’t make that point to them then they’ll think, “What is he talking about? I just picked this thing at random. I never even noticed that half-finished crossword puzzle on the coffee table.” (Or whatever cues might be lying around.)

To make this premise really effective—as I suggest for other “Spectator as” premises,—there needs to be something that happens that allows for this person to achieve these feats. They need to go through some process or ingest something or listen to something unusual or something like that. Maybe they listen to some audio track that supposedly has a hypnotic suggestion that expands their attention and deductive abilities briefly. Maybe they go through some meditation process that does the same. Or maybe it’s a pill. Or whatever.

There just has to be some sort of reason why they now have this ability when they didn’t have it at any other point in their life.

The process of how they acquire this temporary ability is what will make this a memorable experience. That will be the physical/tactile/firsthand part of the experience for them that they can look back and remember. Since they don’t really have this ability they can’t actually remember the feeling associated with it. But they can remember the taste of some concoction they had to drink, or the sight of some strange imagery they were subjected to, or something like that.

The nice thing about this reframe is that it completely flips the script on an influence effect. It elevates the spectator’s cognitive abilities rather than diminishing them.