Tense Magic

Tense Magic is the opposite of Carefree Magic.

The performer exudes an internal tension. Or he grips his props in an unusual or tense manner. Or he speaks in a tense fashion. Or the vibe in the room is tense.

This is so common that I would call it the standard for traditional magic. Almost always, there is something that comes off as awkward or tense. If not multiple things.

One of the principles of the Carefree Magic philosophy is to perform tricks that allow you to engage with people and objects around you in a normal, human way. It’s shocking to me how little magicians seem to care about this. It often seems like the only question magicians ask themselves is, “Is this theoretically impossible?” If the answer is “yes,” they’re okay with whatever other limitations the trick has.

“Is it impossible for a peanut to appear under a bottle cap? Yes! Okay, then let’s do the trick.”

• But the bottle cap doesn’t look normal.

• But the peanut can’t be examined.

• But you have to stiffly hold the cap at one unnatural angle the whole time.

• But there’s no point to a peanut appearing under a bottle cap.

“So what? It’s IMPOSSIBLE for a peanut to appear under a bottle cap!”

Here’s the problem… Tension cancels out impossibility.

If everything you do isn’t normal or justified/contextualized in some manner, then they will dismiss what they saw as much as their mind will allow them to.

Some people will pick up on that tension and dismiss everything they saw as “just a trick.”

The good news is, this tension is SYNONYMOUS with “magic tricks” in the mind of most people.

They expect you to use some fakey looking prop, or handle objects in a strange way, or stop them from looking where they want to look, or speak in a scripted or awkward manner. That’s what they expect from a magic trick.

So when you relax back into the corner of the couch and talk casually about something, you can discuss the most unbelievable subjects and show them the most impossible things, without it feeling like “just a trick” because you lack that tension. Their mind knows, “Surely, this is just a trick.” But it feels like something else.

Years ago, I defined the magical feeling as the gap that exists when you know something isn’t real, but it feels as if it is. Carefree Magic is designed to work on the feeling of this being not a trick.

With Tense Magic, they know it’s a trick, and it feels like at trick because they sense the tension they associate with a trick.

I’ll leave you today with a great example of one of the aspects of Tense Magic: the awkward manner with which magicians handle the props they use.

@lilch0mp

Bizarre elbow placement

♬ original sound - Lilchomp

GLOMM Industry Standards

It’s long been said that the nine most reassuring words in the English Language are, “I’m from the GLOMM, and I’m here to help.”

The Global League of Magicians & Mentalists is the world’s largest magic organization. If you’re not a convicted sexual criminal, you’re already a member.

I’ve decided to start using the power of the GLOMM for other purposes. These aren’t really important issues. Not cosmically important, at least. But I believe there are other ways I can use the reach of this site and the GLOMM for the purposes of good in the magic community.

I’m going to be introducing some “GLOMM Industry Standards” (Or GIS (pronounced “jiz”)).

These are standards that I feel the magic industry should stick to.

Individuals or companies that breach these standards will be noted on this site. If a person or company has three or more infractions, they will be removed from the GLOMM for failing to adhere to industry standards.

You’ll be placed on a different page than the sex predators. So at least there’s that.

My goal is not to kick anyone out. My hope is that by creating some minor repercussions, that people will be less likely to engage in violating these industry standards if it means they’re going to be highlighted here.

So let’s start with three standards. I will add more as time goes on. Feel free to send me some.

GIS #1 - Impromptu Usage

Calling a trick “impromptu” in your ad copy means that it uses no secret objects unknown to the spectator.

Example: If a trick uses a Loop, then it is not impromptu.

Impromptu does not have to mean propless. A trick with a deck of cards, a sharpie, and a belt could be considered impromptu because all of these things could be gathered to perform in a casual setting.

If your trick requires you to carry a gimmick it is not an impromptu trick.

“Yes, but it looks impromptu.”

That’s a meaningless statement.

Exception: If your trick requires you to use something secretly that most people have on them most of the time, it can still be considered impromptu. For example, if the trick requires the secret use of your phone or a key, that could still be considered impromptu. But the secret use of a gimmicked key, would make the trick no longer impromptu.

There are definitely gray areas here that will be taken on a case-by-case basis. The most basic question is, “Does this trick require the secret use of an item that most people don’t carry with them regularly?” If the answer is yes then the trick is definitely not impromptu.

GIS #2 - Clothing Requirements

If your trick has clothing requirements, they must be mentioned in the ad copy.

The only thing you can assume is that the performer will have a shirt on and shorts or pants with at least one pocket. While that’s not always the case, it’s standard enough to assume in most circumstance.

A trick that requires:

• A black shirt.

• Long sleeves.

• A suit jacket.

• A tie.

Anything like that needs to be mentioned.

Why? Because some people aren’t in a situation where they can perform in that attire. You don’t want people to spend their money on a trick they can’t perform in their situation, right? Of course not. You’re a good guy.

GIS #3 - App Longevity

Magic apps should be usable for at least three years past the date of sale.

You don’t just release an app and support it until you’re sick of supporting it. You support it for at least three years after it was most recently purchased.

It’s fine if you want to pull your app from the market, but you should make sure it’s still usable for three years past the date the last person bought it.

This isn’t unreasonable. I’m not saying you have to keep it working forever. I know technology changes. But certainly it’s fair for people to think they’ll get a few years out of their purchase.

This is for your benefit, by the way. What scares people off from buying apps sometimes is that they’re concerned it’s not going to work 5 months from now. If they can say to themselves, “Well, it’s $120, but at the very least I’ll get three years out of it,” that’s going to give them peace of mind to feel more comfortable buying it.

You may include the phrase “We adhere to the GLOMM Industry Standard for App Longevity” in your ad copy to really hammer the point home.

✿✿✿

There you have it. The first three GLOMM Industry Standards. If you would like to take issue with one of these or suggest another, feel free to email me.

These are not going to be retroactive, by the way. I don’t want to be mopping up shit from nine years ago. But feel free to keep me apprised of any violators you notice going forward.

The Eight Step Process to Building a Repertoire

I’m currently in the process of rebuilding my repertoire with the Carefree Philosophy in mind.

Building a repertoire is a simple process. So simple that it probably doesn’t require a post walking you through it. I’m writing this post because it’s so simple. I hear from people who are overwhelmed by the process, and I think they’re making it needlessly complex.

I’m going to walk you through the steps of building a repertoire, and the one unique step to my process which is super helpful to me and I think could be useful to you as well.

Steps to Building a Repertoire

1. Find tricks you like in books, magazines, downloads, online lectures, etc.

2. Once you’ve found a trick you like, learn how to do it.

3. Ask yourself this question: “I like this trick… but would I like performing this trick?” Does it have a move you’re uncomfortable with? Or use a gimmick or methodology you don’t like? If so, forget it. This is part of the Carefree philosophy. There are 10s of thousands of tricks out there. If you don’t completely enjoy performing a trick, don’t bother with it. Be brutal. Craft a repertoire of tricks you love with methods you enjoy performing.

4. You found a trick you like. You learned it. And you’ve decided you would enjoy performing it. Now what? Now you grab a sheet of paper, or a notebook, or open a document on your computer. Write, “Repertoire” at the top. Now write down the name of the trick. This is the easiest step, but the one people are least likely to do. You can’t skip this step. It’s mandatory. Your repertoire doesn’t exist in your head. It exists on this sheet of paper (or in this notebook or computer document).

5. All you need to write down is the name of the trick. But if you want, you can write down additional information like the creator of the trick, where it can be learned, the “category” of trick it is, etc. If that doesn’t sound interesting, you don’t have to do it. Carefree.

6. Write down where the trick lives. [I’ll explain this below.]

7. Repeat steps 1-6 for more tricks.

8. Once in a while (every couple of weeks to every couple of months), read through your repertoire. Practice the tricks that should be practiced. (Many of them won’t need to be practiced, you can just think through them.) Delete the ones you no longer feel like having in your repertoire. As you read through the list, consider where, and in what context, you might perform the trick. Write that down if you want.

That’s it. You now have a repertoire.

Step Six

This is the “unique” step I mentioned above. I think it’s very important for any repertoire, but especially for me as I build my Carefree repertoire.

You need to identify where each effect lives.

That is: Where the effect is stored so that it can be deployed when the time is right.

The answer to that question of where an effect lives should not be “under my bed in a shoebox” or “in a trunk in my closet.” If that’s the case, the trick will rarely, if ever, be performed.

Impromptu card magic effects “live” in the deck. That’s easy.

You might have an effect with a key that lives on your keychain.

I have a bunch of effects that live in a Wonder Room display.

The point is, I don’t just have a list of effects that make up my repertoire. I have a list of effects that “live” somewhere, ready to be used. This is so important if you want to be someone who performs regularly.

(Next week, I’ll continue this concept by breaking down different “houses” you can consider for your effects to live in.)

But there you have it. That’s how to build a repertoire. I recommend 100 tricks, because it’s challenging but doable. You can do more or less. But I think 100 is a good average. I wouldn’t have a 20-trick repertoire (as an amateur), because I think it wouldn’t be stimulating for me and I’d feel constrained. But I also wouldn’t do a 250 trick repertoire because I feel like it would take too much upkeep. I want a good-sized repertoire in service of being able to perform frequently. Not just a big repertoire for the sake of one.

Softness

I’m always excited when I see earlier examples of a concept I came to on my own. It makes me feel like I’m on the right path.

Here is Andy Nyman, in the instructions for his trick The Moment, discussing one of the basic tenets of the Carefree Magic philosophy.

Your audience—consciously or subconsciously—will key into what you are focusing on when you perform.

If you’re thinking about the moves you need to do, they’ll be looking out for moves.

If you’re worried about them getting a look at some prop or gimmick, they will want to look at that prop or gimmick.

If you’re focused on using the exact right words, they will be wondering why you sound awkward.

Conversely, if your focus is on the interaction and this interesting thing in front of you, that’s where they will focus.

That’s why everything needs to be well within your abilities. The only points you’ll get for doing knuckle-busting sleight is with the losers at some magic convention. There’s nothing noble about spending 200 hours learning a difficult sleight. And even once you think you’ve mastered it, you still probably look weird doing it. You look tense and overly-focused at a moment you’re supposedly not doing anything. The truth is, I’ve seen almost no magicians in my life who can smoothly do truly difficult magic. I don’t think it’s a worthwhile goal, because I don’t think it’s achievable. And even if it is, I don’t think it adds that much to the spectator’s experience beyond what you can accomplish with methodologies that are well within your reach.

Seek softness. Seek casualness. Seek a carefree, laid-back style of interaction. This will fool people more than any center-deal ever did.

Mailbag #122

Re: Last week’s Cross-Cut Tweak Tweak

My tweak on the cross-cut force.  The participant is asked to hold the deck and is instructed as follows:  ‘I’m going to snap my fingers (or count to three), and when I do I want you to grab a bunch of cards—any amount—and put them on the table.  And I want you to do this without thinking.  No thinking,ust grab a bunch and put them on the table.”  The participant complies.  “Great, now put the rest on top crosswise.”  I mime the replacement, just to be clear. “We’ll get back to that.”

I think the “no thinking” instructions adds a layer of deceptiveness in that includes the cross-cut packet as something that also needs no thinking.  The context in which I use this is as a revelation of a card previously forced in a different manner.  Your thoughts?—AK

I see what you’re going for, but here’s where my thinking differs…

In general, I’m a big fan of slowing down forces. When I do an under-the-spread cull force, I really drag out the proceedings. I want it to be clear to them that they can touch any card, we can go back in the spread if we need to, they can change their mind, etc. etc.

The cross-cut force, however, works on a different principle than most magic. There’s no secret action. It’s just the human mind’s inability to follow along with what packet is where.

“Inability” is the wrong word. It’s not that the human mind can’t follow what’s going on with the cross-cut force. It’s that it doesn’t bother to pay attention until a point where it’s too late.

If you said to someone, “I’m going to have you cut to a card, and then we’ll look at the card you cut to, and that will be your selection,” and then you tried to do the cross-cut force, it would be much more likely to fail because they’d be ahead of where it was going.

So I believe you want to do the cutting part of the cross-cut force with as little focus on the action as possible.

The way I do it is: “Cut the deck anywhere… okay, we’ll get back to that.”

Because the cross-cut force only works to the extent their minds aren’t paying attention to the process, I don’t want to do anything that might cause them to pay more attention. That’s why I don’t tell them to replace the other packet “at a weird angle.” And why I, personally, wouldn’t snap my fingers or count to three or use your language of asking them to cut “without thinking.” I feel like any of those things would just get the spectator to engage their mind more than just asking them to “cut the cards” and moving on.

Later on, once the card is in play, then I might focus on the cutting action and the fairness of it. “You shuffled the deck, and you cut the cards anywhere you wanted. Just one card shallower or one card deeper would have brought us to a different card.” Blah, blah, blah.

This is just my philosophy. I think the cross-cut force is fooling enough that it can stand up to almost anything that you might say while doing it.

But my goal is to give myself the absolute best chance of fooling people with the force and I feel like I wring a final few percentage points of fooling out of the force by making the cutting action as forgettable as possible. And that also means six months down the line, if I use the cross-cut force again with them, they don’t recollect anything unusual I said or did as being part of a similar process to something they did before.

It’s just a cut. I treat it like a cut. A simple, forgettable cut.

If I want to do a force with more focus on that part of the procedure, I’ll likely use a different force altogether.

---

 I’ve been closing with your version of The Blur in one of my table-hopping sets for over two years (using a custom blank deck I had made) and it’s my strongest card trick. Now that the trick is available in Bicycle Maiden backs, you don’t have to petition Tenyo to make you a copy. I’d give it a shot if you never followed up on it. —FE

Here is The Blur by Mathieu Bich and Garrett Thomas…

I enjoy tricks like this visually, but I also know the people I perform for well enough that they’d just ask to see the deck. At that point, what is my option? Blow my “Asian mist” in their face like I’m the Great Muta and run the other direction?

So I wanted a way for the trick to end examinable, and I had the idea to combine it with Dean Dill’s Blizzard.

So they would select a card, and you would “hypnotize” them or do whatever your premise was so that they could now “only see the card you chose.” They would tell you they actually could see all the cards, but they were blurry now.

You would say you want to try again, break the hypnosis (deck is back to normal), have them choose another card, do the Blizzard switch, and “re-hypnotize them” in some more “intense” manner. Now when they look at the deck they see no faces except for the card they chose.

So the “blurring” effect is a mistake, or at least a precursor to the faces vanishing entirely.

And I would pretend that it’s only in their mind that this is happening and that I could still clearly see the faces.

Their chosen card wouldn’t be examinable at the end (unless you forced it), but since that’s the only card that nothing apparently happens to, I think there would be little to no heat on that card. It would all be on the now-blank deck.

Dustings #115

If you ordered the hardcover reprint of the Amateur at the Kitchen Table essay, you received an email this morning telling you how to confirm your shipping address so I can mail it out to you. That email went to the email address associated with your Paypal account.

I can’t ship you the book until you confirm your address.

---

Speaking of books, this week, I received my third email in the past year from someone saying one of their Jerx books was stolen from their car. Clearly the value of the Jerx supporter reward books has gotten out to the gangs of smash and grab car thieves and they’re now targeting the vehicles of my supporters so they can resell the books for massive profits.

No, I’m kidding, I’m sure those books are now sitting at the bottom of a dumpster somewhere. This is just a reminder to keep your magic books—or at least your magic books from me—out of your car. I feel bad when I hear these stories, but there’s nothing I can do as I have literally no extra copies of any of the books I’ve put out.

---

A bunch of people have sent me this and asked me my thoughts on it, given that the idea is similar to a trick I came up with years ago…

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tony Aube - Design (@tony.aube.design)

My thoughts on it are…

1. It’s probably not legit.

2. If it is legit, it will probably cost a fortune.

3. If it is legit and doesn’t cost a fortune, then it will be so well known to be virtually useless for magic purposes. Sadly.

---

After I made my post on reviving cigarette magic, a bunch of people wrote in to suggest that we focus on reimagining these cigarette tricks as weed tricks—especially given the much more lax regulations against marijuana these days.

It makes sense, I think I probably know more people that smoke weed than smoke cigarettes.

There’s just one problem with this idea though…. weed is corny.

I’m not saying you are corny if you smoke weed. Just that—for whatever reason—weed itself has a sort of “dopey” connotation to it. It’s not a cool look.

Smoking cigarettes is strange. It can be seen as sort of trashy. But there is also a weird elegance to it that allows it to come off as romantic or sexy for some people. It can be seen as “stylish.”

Unfortunately, smoking weed is never really stylish.

Wait…

I spoke too soon…

Mailbag: Declining Performing

I like performing stuff, but it’s usually when I feel like it. There are contexts where for whatever reason it feels off. And I usually decline. I have noticed a few things and situations that make this happen:

- if there are other people around (not part of the group) and my friends ask specifically for some card tricks. I think I feel self-conscious of the magiciany look of pulling a deck of cards out and people seeing. Or even... getting outside people seeing us and asking for more tricks. There is something about doing more than 1 or 2 tricks one after the other that feels weird to me.

- if there is the potential of other outside people asking for more tricks. It’s not the performing for a stranger that bothers me at all. I’m fine with that. It’s the, i just did 1 or 2 tricks so now a 3rd or 4th is like too much. As if 1 or 2 things is normal and over that is already magiciany and performing monkey or whatever you want to call that. I don’t actually enjoy that feeling.

[…]

- Even though i love doing card tricks. It’s like there are moments where it’s just weird to do card tricks even if people ask. Specially standing up. If there are tables around that I can use, card tricks feel normal. But actually holding a deck in hand and performing standing up for example, that way is part of that magiciany look. Again. I love card tricks. And performing them. It’s just some contexts that make it feel weird to me. Like a full group standing up and I’m part of the group

[…]

Do you actually have times when you decline performing? Or have heard this situation for other magicians?

I have no clue exactly what the "magiciany look" is that bothers me. But it’s there enough to notice it.—JFC

It sounds like you’re carrying around a deck of cards with you. If you do that, and if you show people card tricks, then you are going to be known as the guy who goes around and shows people card tricks. So yeah, you can’t be surprised if people are asking for more and more.

It’s like you’re walking around with a bag of potato chips. Someone is going to take one, then another, then another. Why? Because they’re fucking potato chips, that’s why you do with them.

But imagine you took that person over to a table and had a waiter bring out a single slice of potato, blanched to achieve an optimal texture before being gently submerged in a bath of premium, high-smoke-point oil; then crisped to a golden hue before being dusted with artisanal sea salt—and then you had them eat it, slowly, piece by piece, savoring each bite. They’re still eating a potato chip, and they might crave more, but they’re not going to say, “I’ll take 50 more of these.”

This is the difference between presenting something like it’s meant to be scarfed down, and presenting something like it’s meant to be savored.

Most magicians treat card tricks like they’re Peanut M&Ms, meant to be consumed by the handful.

That’s fine if you want to do a lot of card tricks for people.

But if not, then it’s up to you to reframe the nature of the interaction.

For me, that means not coming off as someone who has a bunch of card tricks memorized. Sure, I occasionally have one that I’m working on. But—as far as they know—I don’t have a library of card tricks in my head ready to go at all time. I never perform that way, so they don’t expect it from me.

A strong premise also helps for this sort of thing. If they think of what they’re seeing as simply a “card trick,” then they might expect you to have a bunch more to show them.

But if I say, “Hey, can you help me practice this gambling move I’m working on? I’ve got a poker game I’m going to next Friday, and they actually encourage cheating—so long as you don’t get caught.” Then it makes less sense to ask to see another one when it’s over, because the context of the interaction wasn’t just: “Watch me do a card trick.”

If people already know you as the “card trick guy,” it may be hard or impossible to change that. But you can always just tell people you haven’t really been keeping up with the card tricks so much recently. “Oh, I do have one that I’ve been working on.” This preps them for the idea that you don’t have an endless stream of tricks to come, so they should really focus on this one.

But the “magiciany” look you’re worried about seems primarily driven by pulling out a deck of cards and showing multiple card tricks. If you don’t like that look (and I don’t blame you if you don’t), then you should challenge yourself to leave the deck at home and build your repertoire of stuff that can be done with everyday objects or nothing at all.