Mailbag #141
/
I have no other place to bitch about this so I figured your inbox is fine. The extremely obvious AI writing in Penguin Magic's new copywriting is very annoying. Em dashes, "It's not x, it's y", and rules of three used eight times each in every description. Am I the only one that cares about this? Are we doomed of
"You shit your pants. It smells. You'll have to change."
type AI slop for the rest of time? YOU'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF A FUCKING "ART" AS THEY WANT IT TO BE CALLED, HIRE A MONKEY TO WRITE THREE PARAGRAPHS. —JM
I get what you’re saying. I think we’re in a weird transitional period. For some of us, the AI “voice” is so obvious that it just feels cheap and cold when we read it. But others, who aren’t as familiar with it yet, can still read that same copy and think it’s well written. It feels better than what they might write, so they assume it must be good.
But as that style becomes more ubiquitous, it’s going to start feeling inauthentic and generic to more and more people.
Think of dandelions.
Dandelions grow everywhere, with no effort. So we call them weeds. But if they only bloomed on the side of one specific mountain every eight years, we’d treasure them like rare orchids.
The problem with AI writing isn’t that it’s always bad—it’s that it comes too easily. And when something is that easy, it becomes impossible to value. It’s fine if you’re writing a letter to your landlord asking to be let out of your lease two months early. But it’s not great if you’re trying to connect with an audience.
I think a lot of magic companies view ad copy as a nuisance to get over with. And maybe for most customers, it is. But for me, when I read obviously non-human writing, it turns off the part of my brain that is persuadable. So sure, you filled up the ad space. But it doesn’t do what you wanted it to do. At least not for me. And I don’t think I’m alone.
Honestly, I’d be more convinced to buy a new release by a bad writer genuinely expressing his excitement for a trick.
I know people think AI “art” is going to replace the human kind. But I don’t buy it.
It reminds me of an argument I had with someone who thought VR goggles would replace skiing. “Why would anyone go to their local hill when they can experience the greatest slopes in the world from their living room?”
I don’t think that guy understood why people go skiing.
And I don’t think the people churning out AI-written slop understand why moves people in writing or other forms of art.
Not that magic ad copy was ever “art.” It’s always been deceptively worded, over-the-top nonsense. But now it’s those things, written by something that’s never once been fooled by—or fooled someone with—the trick it’s writing about.
(Please note: I’ve been using em-dashes on this site since the beginning. I can’t give them up, no matter how fucked out they get by our robot overlords.)
Loved your post: The Power of The “Narrative How”. It was exactly what I needed to read today.
Man, this perfectly sums up what I’ve been experiencing since I started following your style. People just stopped interrupting me or trying to figure out the secret. Something funny actually happened the other day — I was at a bar with some friends, and they asked me to show something. I started telling a really absurd story, and there were a few new people there. One of them asked, “wait, is he being serious?” — and I didn’t even have to say anything. The others cut him off and said, “yeah, it’s true.” And the craziest part? They started asking open-ended questions, even though they knew it was just a magic premise.—DM
This was representative of some of the emails I received after I wrote about the “Narrative How.” If you missed it or skimmed past it, I’d encourage you to take another look. If the ideas on this site resonate with you, that post lays out a foundational concept—one that I believe can create longer-lasting interest than the standard approach to magic.
Hey, just wondering—have you ever tested how many people can actually do a riffle shuffle? I got excited to pick up the Savant Deck after reading your Mailbag #140 cause i liked your approach to math tricks. I learned it and tried it on three different people, but none of them could do a riffle shuffle, so the trick kinda bombed. (If you don’t know it only works if the spectator does a real riffle shuffle. Stuff like the Rosetta doesn’t work. And without the shuffle it’s not really worth doing.) Just curious if you’ve ever looked into how many people still know how to do that type of shuffle? —ST
We never specifically tested that, no. Although it’s an interesting question. If I had to estimate, in my experience performing for friends and acquaintances, and also testing card tricks for strangers, I would say probably 25-30% of people can do a clean riffle shuffle. That number shifts higher the older they are.
I would definitely not pull out the Savant Deck for someone whose shuffling abilities I didn’t know. Stopping someone from doing an overhand shuffle or just smooshing the cards around on the table would be an awkward moment that doesn’t say “magic” so much as it says, “special deck I need you to shuffle a specific way.”
So, here are your options:
Perform for magicians (if you’re a dork)
Save this trick for someone you know can riffle shuffle. (I’m going to pick this up and that’s what I’ll end up doing with it.)
If you perform for groups of people, you can ask, “Who plays cards? I need someone who is really good at shuffling so we can be certain the deck is in a completely random order.” I’ve never found someone who says they’re good at shuffling when they’re not. And this request makes it feel like you’re being more fair.