Mailbag #154
/
Magicians hold things differently from regular people.
Being a magician, I get magic on my feed every now and then. […]
I often recognise that I am watching a magician before reading the title of the reel, before they have said anything about magic, and before seeing anything on the screen (like a pack of cards) that specifically relates to magic.
[M]y useless ability derives from the fact that magicians hold things funny.
I mean, take the guy above.[…] Who else holds an object at their fingertips away from their body, shows the other hand empty, and stares at it like it's a prop from an Indiana Jones movie?
Incidentally, this guy performs the sleight well - I'm not knocking him.
And I can see the advantages of handling objects this way for non-social performances. You want your movements to be slow and deliberate. Choreographed, like a dance. And people need to see the thing you're holding, so it makes sense to hold it at the edges - that way, they can see more of it.
But, for casual performances, does this way of holding or handling or treating objects -- we could call it 'object fascination' or 'performative handling' so we have a term to refer to -- detract from the overall effect?
I think Dani DaOrtiz senses this and goes to the other extreme, chucking cards about like he couldn't give a f***, which works for him very well. I tried this once in a card trick and my wife looked at me like I had lost the plot. It didn't seem natural to her.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts - how does the attitude and manner with which we interact with objects affect the effect, and what should we think about (or not) when handling objects in our casual magic performances?—JB
Yes, I’ve been writing for over a decade about how the amateur should do what they can to eliminate “performative” elements in their magic: obvious scripting, planned jokes, tricks that have been “routined” together, objects that are transparently magic props, etc.
But it’s also in the way we handle objects.
I made that point early on in this post about my favorite coin vanish.
This can be hard to manage, because a lot of methods require you to handle an object in an odd or unnatural way. They only work that way.
That means the library of sleights available to someone chasing a casual aesthetic is smaller than you might like.
That’s okay. There are still plenty of techniques that fit into a more natural style. All you’re giving up are methods that seem fishy in the first place.
I stick to two kinds of handling: A) what looks normal, or B) what looks extra fair.
I might hold a coin on my flat hand (normal). Or I might hold it at my fingertips (in a way that seems explicitly fair). But I wouldn’t hold it in a contorted position just for the sake of doing a sleight.
That’s my only real test: does it look normal—or, if not, does it look like I’m going out of my way to be fair?
And then it’s just a matter of being willing to eliminate anything that doesn’t live up to that standard.
I recently purchased Outsmarted by Green Lemon, which includes the ESP Finger set (also available separately as Finger Match).
Over the weekend, I performed the classic Jazz Mentalism by David Humphrey as the first phase — presented as if the spectator, using intuition, was able to mirror the cards I laid down. I then followed it with Echo Sync, as a second phase without any cards, to demonstrate that no trick deck or sleight was involved.
This combination worked beautifully — Echo Sync seemed to eliminate the last remaining doubts the audience had after the first, more “prop-based” phase.
I’m now also thinking about possible variations where, perhaps with a bit of humor, I could integrate a phase that includes the presentation of the Twickle Hands.
Just wanted to share this with you, as I found the flow between these routines very effective and the reactions fantastic.—MH
I think that’s a good combination of ideas.
I would likely do them on different occasions. Do the card version one night, and then the video version some other time because you want to try it again but you “don’t have your cards on you.”
You could then do a third beat at a later date with a Twickle hand and a “Here’s how I really do it” premise. Where the little guy clues you into which number they’re thinking of.
This is a nice stack of effects:
A strong card-based version. It’s fooling, but still has the feeling of a more traditional trick.
A non-card version that makes it feel more real and lends credence to the card version.
A comedic brush-off that’s still fooling.
This is a way of keeping people off balance in regard to what to expect from your magic, while still adding continuity to the stuff you do and a feeling like these things are taking place in the same weird universe.
I bought some NOC cards because I wanted the black backs for Adam Elbaum’s Awe Struck but it made me laugh when I found they're marked with a totally bonkers system that's fully disclosed on the web!
If you count the number of sharp corners on the outer border you get the suit. One sharp is spades, two sharps is hearts, three sharps is clubs, four is diamonds, and no sharps mean’s it’s a joker. To get the card value first orientate the card by making the inner top left corner sharp. Then look at the inner area. Starting at the top left, work anticlockwise noting the sharp corners. The first has a value of one, the second two, the third four and the fourth the value of eight. Add everything together and you get the value of the card… Zzz…
Even a lightning-fast teenager with eyes of a hawk, in a brightly lit room, is going to struggle to do this without telegraphing. I need to put on my reading glasses (always a bit of a tell) turn up the lighting some more and suggest everyone makes a cup of coffee… If I really want to know the name of the card, I’ve found there are some really nice clear markings on the card’s front.
However, here is the thing. As the House of Playing Cards is dumb enough to have disclosed their marking system, they can’t object if a presentation discloses it. Non magicians will find it curious and it’s a cute “garden path” to lead them down. I don’t think the magic world is being deprived of a useful tool as no sane magician would use this system!—DM
You’re correct in assuming no performer has ever actually used this system in performance. Unfortunately, it’s not completely value-less, as the round/sharp corner concept is usable for marked ESP cards. And therefore, not something I’d want to expose to people.
If you want a truly bad marked deck—one you can expose—to convince people that marking systems are absurdly complex (without burning anything useful), check out this post.