Dustings #117

/

I don’t usually ever go back like this, but for supporters who have the most recent newsletter (LL#27), I have to double-down on my recommendation for the first trick I discussed in that issue. I had only performed it a few times before that write-up and I’ve gone on to perform it a bunch more since then. The variation written up there has been really messing with people in a good way.

And, while I described my handling as “clumsy” (or something like that), it all happens when their back is to you and they’re concentrating on something else, so it doesn’t matter in the least.

I was high on the trick before, but now it’s one of my favorites of the year.

Great Moments In Patter

“In your head, you focus on what this word is. If it’s a small word, imagine whatever the word is. If it’s a large word… imagine whatever it is.”

And if it’s a medium-length word? WHAT THEN???

Obviously, Pete is making the distinction so he can gesture in that way to get his peek. But the fact that there is actually no distinction between the two things, sort of struck me as funny, especially from Pete who I think of as being pretty precise with his wording.

If you want to keep the same gestures, I would say something like, “You can either imagine the object itself in front of you [peek gesture], or imagine the word spelled out in front of you [wide gesture].”

If you do the trick Inverto by Liam Levanon, and you do the trick as described in the instructions (where you’re using your phone to reverse the image of a selected card), here’s an idea you might want to use…

As you disccuss the different filters on instagram (or snapchat or whatever) you talk about the mustache one and show how it gives you a mustache on the screen. Then, as they turn to you, you have the mustache in real life.

It would just be a matter of positioning them and choreographing it so you can slip the fake mustache on while their back is to you and before you lift up the phone for them to look into.

It would make a dumb lead-in to Inverto, or a goofy follow-up as another example of you manifesting the effects of photo filters in real life.

Pseudo Chatbot Update

/

There’s been an update to the pseudo-chatbot feature in the Jerx app. In the settings, you can enter whatever name you want to use for that chatbot.

There are two benefits to this.

  1. Now you can come up with a name that is completely ungoogleable, should anyone decide to try and look into it further.

  2. You can use a name that goes along with whatever story you want to spin about this supposed chatbot that exists on the dark web that you have access too.

You don’t have to make it jokey. You could name the program DeckSorterH6 and do ShuffleBored and place the phone on top of the deck and write, “What is the orientation of the cards in the deck?” Then it will shoot out its response as if it’s somehow reading the cards in the deck.

If you use your own deck, you can claim they’re special cards that the program can “read” via RFID chips, or something.

To me that’s a bit too on the believable side of technology.

So I will probably do something simpler with a borrowed deck. I’ll name the program CardFinderTX4 or something. Borrow a deck and do some type of Automatic Placement trick where the spectator seemingly mixes and loses a chosen card in the deck. Then the phone is placed on top of the deck and they type in, “Where is my card?” and it spits out:

Your card is located at the 37th position in the deck.

Or whatever the case may be.

This will be a good impromptu piece for when I can use someone’s deck at their place. With the right method, there will be no explanation.

It also allows me to play dumb. It’s the bot that’s doing it. Not me. I wish I knew how it worked.

I just need to find a good Automatic Placement trick. If you have a favorite I should check out, let me know.

I might use it as a reveal for the Trick that Fooled Einstein. Again, I would make it seem like somehow the program is “reading” the number of matches in our hand (or whatever) by waving the phone over our closed fists.

This also provides a little justification for why the revelation is so strangely worded. It’s AI. Who knows why it says things the way it does?

Of course, the app can be used to reveal anything that’s forced. It’s just a matter of finding the right trick to use it with. I would save it for a trick that would otherwise be a dull prediction. One of those tricks that you like, but you just don’t have a particularly good premise for. In that case, the AI premise will add an element of interest to it. But if your trick already has some interesting or charming aspect to it, then it would probably be a step backwards to use this particular reveal.

(Thanks, as always, to Marc Kerstein for his continued updates and maintenance on the Jerx app.)

Mailbag: Planned Failures

/

How do you feel about the idea that getting some wrong in mentalism will strengthen the other tricks around it by making them feel more legitimate? Some performers suggest inserting misses on purpose while others say you don't need to do that because you're bound to get things wrong anyway.  What do you think? Do you put them in intentionally? —EF

We tested misses in mentalism about 5 years. My takeaway at that time was that a near miss was productive, but being totally wrong wasn't.

I would say that's still my theory.

I just don't buy the idea that being wildly off is convincing of anything. 

For example, if you were skeptical that someone could read, and you decided to test him a few times, and he got the words right that you were showing him, you might think:

"Well, I guess he can read." 

or

"Somehow he's tricking me. Someone is telling him the words I'm going to test him on or something."

So let's imagine he gets a few words correct, you’re still not sure what to believe, so you test him again.

"What does this say?" you ask

WATER FOUNTAIN

He looks at it for a moment and then replies, "It says, 'Boot.'"

Would you think, "I knew it. This bitch doesn't know how to read. He was faking it before."

Or would you think, "See, him getting this wrong proves that he wasn't using tricks the other times, or he would have got it right! He can, in fact, read!"

That would be some bizarre logic. But mentalists often think a totally wrong guess will generate that reaction.

I think it's unlikely. I think it's more likely they'll think you messed up your trick.

But a near miss is helpful. If the guy said, "Water mountain." You would think, "Ah, yes. He can clearly read. He just didn't see it accurately or he slightly misspoke."

When I want to up the believability of something I'm doing, I don't include a near miss. 

What I include is a minor almost believable impossibility. As talked about in Monday's post. 

That gets people thinking, "Okay, sure. That thing he did with his 'invisible friend' was just a trick... but was this real?"

That's my way of keeping people off balance rather than a planned miss.

More Fake Business Card Billets

/

Read this post for the idea behind using these.

Here are some additional fake business cards from A. Cousins, along with the ones Myles Thornton provided us with a few years ago.

Here they are formatted for this size printable business cards in the U.S.

And here they are formatted for this size in the U.K/Europe.

While many of the numbers/addresses are UK-centric, I wouldn’t worry too much about it. If it doesn’t make sense to say that you were traveling to the UK, then say that you met that person, or a representative of that institution, while they were visiting your area. Or while you were both at some conference. Whatever makes more sense.

Thanks to Andrew and Myles.

“Rediscovering” one of these cards in your wallet (or using it as a bookmark), letting that lead to the story of how you ended up with it, and letting that story transition into a trick, is a much more interesting and natural way to roll into an effect rather than pulling out the blank business cards that you’re carrying with you purely for some trick you want to show them.

Delayed ESP

/

In my previous newsletter for supporters, I mentioned a trick that was essentially a one-phase, thought of ESP symbol reveal. And in that article I said I would mention the method I’m using for this.

The method I’m using for this is Marc Kerstein’s Xeno app along with the custom site he and I created in order to learn what ESP symbol someone was thinking of.

And here’s how I do it. I call the person earlier in the day or the week, before I’ll see them. And I tell them I have this “thing I’m working on” and I ask them for their help. I direct them to that website and tell them to scroll to any one of those symbols and read up on how to transmit the symbol. I ask them to keep that in their mind for when I see them later.

The beauty of Xeno is that you can do it remotely without any strange steps to it. You just direct someone to a website and you’ll know what they choose to look at.

The reason I use this method as opposed to marked ESP cards or something like that is because I want to extend the moment in a natural way. If I have you pick an ESP card, and then I reveal the symbol in some way, that’s going to be a 2-minute experience, most likely.

But this way, I get to plant the seed earlier in the day, building up anticipation for something to come later. And I’m doing so in a way that makes sense. “Go to this website, and learn how to project one of these symbols.” It seems reasonable that maybe I’d want them to learn about this and let it “marinate” in their minds for some time, to give us a greater chance of success later on.

You might ask, though, “Why build anticipation over hours for a 1 in 5 reveal? Won’t that be anticlimactic”

It’s a good question. I’ll give you two answers.

First, my goal when performing is to mess with people in regard to their level of belief. I love really crazy tricks and premises, but I think you have to mix those in with almost believable impossibilities to keep people on their toes. The idea that I could have you read up on how to transmit a symbol mentally, and then when we get together I’m able to somehow tap into that mental energy to figure out which of these five symbols you’re thinking of… that’s the sort of trick that doesn’t sound like much, but it can end up capturing someone’s imagination because we devoted so much time to it. And because it’s so grounded compared to a lot of the other stuff I do, it carries a different sort of power over people.

So we might meet up for dinner and I ask them to think of the shape and focus on how to transmit it to me (as they read earlier on the website). I would imply I’m getting “something,” but I’m not too confident, so maybe I’m just imagining it. Then I’d go back to them a few more times through the night, ask them to concentrate. There’s no big “ah-ha” moment, but each time I’m getting a tiny bit more certain.

Before they leave for the night, I ask them to try again. “I’m down to two that I’m thinking of. I want to see if this will push me in one direction or the other.” After they’re done focusing this final time, I can reveal what I’m “picking up.”

Again, it’s not meant to be the most fun thing I do, or the most impossible. But it’s more tethered to reality than most of what they see me do, so there’s this sense that there’s maybe something else going on there besides it just being a trick.

The second reason to do it this way—where you get them thinking about it early in the day building to a reveal later on—is that you now have a few hours to set your reveal up.

For example, I have a neighbor kid who is about 4 years old, He’s a funny kid and I knew he’d like messing with people. So a couple of times I’ve gone over and talked to his mom and asked for the kid’s help. I tell him I’m going to bring someone over later and when I ask him to tell me what the person is thinking, he should say a square.

I’m able to set this up in advance because I did the Xeno bit with my friend earlier on.

So now when I meet up with my friend later, I can say, “Do you remember the shape you looked at earlier? Don’t tell me, I don’t want to know. But I want you to meet this kid. He can do this crazy thing. It’s super creepy.”

And we stop by the neighbor’s house and the kid will “read their mind.”

The kid loves it, because he gets to be the center of attention. It allows me to do the trick without forcing the ESP symbol, or teaching the kid to have to learn to read marked cards or something like that.

That’s just one example. Any interesting reveal you have that might require a little prep time is possible with this structure.

And with Xeno you can create a site about anything and follow that same structure (get them to visit the site earlier in the day, and then build up to a revelation later in the day.) So if you don’t think the 1 in 5 nature of an ESP reveal is worth it, you can create a site with many more options. You just need to come up with a rationale in regard to why you’re asking them to check the site out earlier in the day.

Dustings #116

/

The book can be purchased here. A free sample of the book can be found here.

I have to be honest and say that I didn’t enjoy this book.

I mean… I haven’t read it yet. So that’s why I didn’t enjoy it. I’m sure I likely will enjoy it. But I didn’t yet. Like you didn’t enjoy a pizza you haven’t eaten yet. Is this confusing?

I didn’t enjoy Gone With the Wind either, because I haven’t watched it yet.

So Oliver Meech’s new book is the Gone With the Wind of magic books.

(In the sense that I’ve yet to experience either.)

Wait, let me put it like this…

In the late 2000s, Oliver Meech released two books The Plot Thickens and Plot Twists. I enjoyed those books so much that 15 years later, he was one of the people I reached out to for the Christmas party, despite the fact he hadn’t really released anything to the magic community for over a decade. That’s how much the thinking behind those books stuck with me.

So that’s why I recommend checking out his new book, despite the fact that it has brought me no joy.

(yet)

The power of working with a wingman (wingmom)

I have to take a drastic step and douche out my folder of emails I have that I intended to respond to on the site. It’s grown to hundreds and it’s just overwhelming me now.

So if you ever wrote me, and I responded, “I’ll answer that on the site at some point,” I’m probably not going to unless you re-send me the question.

Usually when people write me and I say I’ll answer on the site it’s because:

A) I think I have something that might be of interest to share with a wider audience.

or

B) I think I’m close to having something that might be of interest to share with a wider audience.

But what sometimes happens is I forget that thing I thought might be interesting to share or that thing never develops in the first place.

And that’s how I end up with a folder of hundreds of emails that I told people I might respond to.

I’m going to nuke that folder and start again fresh. Certainly feel free to resubmit your question if you want to, and I’ll try to do a better job of following up with you.

Mailbag #123

/

I’ve been getting a lot of emails that are like, “I got this trick and I’m not getting good reactions from it.” While I can sometimes give my theory on it, these can be hard to answer because while it might be the trick, it might just be you, or it might be the environment. So I can really only say how I might do the trick differently (or why I wouldn’t do the trick at all). Just FYI.

I’ve been doing the new Stitch trick for a few days now and the reactions have been pretty underwhelming. What gives? Will you be reviewing this in your newsletter? Or do you have any thoughts on how to get a better reaction with it? —RS

I won’t be reviewing this, no. I can see myself having the same issue you’re facing.

This is the sort of trick I would have been really drawn to years ago, but in recent years I’ve realized this is unlikely to get me the type of reactions I want from a trick.

Why?

Here’s what I think…

For a visual trick like this to be affective, there needs to be an openness and a clarity to the handling within the parameters of the trick.

What do I mean?

Well, here’s what I DON’T mean.

I don’t mean, “If you’re going to cut your finger in half, then you must do it without the tube. You must do it out in the open or everyone will just assume it’s a trick.”

That’s not what I’m saying.

What I mean is, if the parameters (or the conditions) of the trick are: “I can cut my finger in half when I place it in this tube,” that’s fine. But you can’t then be all cozy with how you display your bifurcated finger afterward. Not if you want to really affect people.

The “obvious” solution is that—depsite the tube—you must just be bending your finger in some way. If you don’t openly show your hand back and forth, then you’re not showing people what they want to see at that moment.

With visual effects, if the method for your affect doesn’t allow you to display to people the first thing they want to see to confirm it’s really happening, then you just have an optical illusion or a puzzle. You don’t really have a magic trick. Not a truly convincing one, at any rate.

It’s like this:

The impossible statement: “I have a really hot girlfriend!”

You don’t believe me. You want to meet her.

The conditions: “Ah, well, she lives in Canada. You can’t meet her in person.”

Now, I want to prove that impossible statement given the conditions.

The proof: We do a FaceTime chat with her. She says she’s my girlfriend. She says she’s in Canada.

That would be fairly convincing to you.

But what if we talked to her on FaceTime and she was sitting in a darkened room where you couldn’t see her? You would be unlikely to think I was really dating this beautiful Canadian model.

That’s sort of what’s going on here:

The impossible statement: “I can cut my finger in two and restore it.”

The conditions: “I just have to put it in this tube to do so.”

The proof: I put my finger in the tube, cut it in two, pull off the top part and show my hand all around.

You can’t do that last part with Stitch. And there’s no reason (other than the method) why you can’t or wouldn’t.

To me, that’s the trick’s weakness.

As a puzzle though, I think it’s still solid and entertaining and over quick enough. So I don’t think it’s a bad idea to do. Just don’t expect people to be, like, enchanted by it, because it’s not that sort of trick.

When you talk about “housing” your tricks do you have something in place for tricks with full deck stacks as far as keeping them ready to go at all times?—CD

I only have a handful of effects in my repertoire that require a significant stack—that is to say, a stack that I can’t either get into on the fly or with 15 seconds or so with the deck in my hands.

If there is a trick in my repertoire that requires a full deck stack, then that means I will have a deck on display in my home that is stacked for that trick at all times.

This is the benefit of having a small display of normal decks in your house. You can have someone grab you a deck “at random” and they’ll be grabbing you a deck that is ready to go for some miracle.

Or, if you’re inspired to perform that particular trick, you can go and grab the deck yourself. You never have to excuse yourself to go set something up.

For me, the last step of rehearsing a trick with a significant stack in my repertoire is to reset the stack. This leaves that trick always “housed” in my deck display.